CDZ Tax Simplification, Who Will be the Losers

[AVG-JOE]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Taxes based on a code that is applied exactly the same to everyone.

For example:

Federal tax of 15% on all personal income in excess of $40,000 and a federal corporate tax of 3% on all income net of non-executive payroll.

Everyone should know with certainty EXACTLY what everyone else is paying on a percentage basis, because that's what they're paying.

Except the rich who'll still get their tax breaks.

NO!

The idea behind 'fair and simple' is that everyone gets the same break and everyone pays the same percentage above that break.

Anything else and we're wasting our time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...

The answer is a fair and simple tax code.

I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.

The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

Then "services" (spending) should be limited to what is common.

The government has no business micromanaging the economy by giving tax breaks to industries and business they think deserve an advantage and the government has no business doling out welfare via a the tax code.

Talk about an invitation to fraud, corruption and abuse!

What do you mean "government has no business micromanaging the economy"? I mean, it's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that govt is there, and the people elect them, and the govt can do whatever the people want them to do.

Tax breaks in the US have become a massive joke, and shouldn't be the way they are. The EU has it right. Each country can set a tax level, but ALL companies must adhere to that tax rate. Ireland got stuffed in court because they were giving Google an easy ride.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

But fair and simple don't go together in this case. That's the problem.

As for "We, The Peeps", well, wishful thinking.

Until the current system changes, and Proportional Representation gets in with choice for voters and equal power of votes, then nothing will ever change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Taxes based on a code that is applied exactly the same to everyone.

For example:

Federal tax of 15% on all personal income in excess of $40,000 and a federal corporate tax of 3% on all income net of non-executive payroll.

Everyone should know with certainty EXACTLY what everyone else is paying on a percentage basis, because that's what they're paying.

Except the rich who'll still get their tax breaks.

NO!

The idea behind 'fair and simple' is that everyone gets the same break and everyone pays the same percentage above that break.

Anything else and we're wasting our time.

Again, it's like walking into a restaurant and everyone paying the same, but one person being treated like a king, and another getting a shit meal. Not fair.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...

The answer is a fair and simple tax code.

I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.

The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.

The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...

The answer is a fair and simple tax code.

I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.

The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.

Almost total agreement. Simplifying the tax code will also permit reduction in the size of the IRS but given that state and local taxes will remain more or less untouched that has implications. For example it will become much harder for many states to come up with the money for federal matching funds and the states that will suffer the most from this inability to come up with funds are going to be blue states.

The states need almost as much tax reform as the federal government does...

The states should focus their interest on commerce with minimal taxes (if any) on personal income and the feds should focus interest on personal income tax with minimal taxes on commerce.

Let the states manage the commerce that they must live with and among.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

But fair and simple don't go together in this case. That's the problem.

As for "We, The Peeps", well, wishful thinking.

Until the current system changes, and Proportional Representation gets in with choice for voters and equal power of votes, then nothing will ever change.

And whose fault is that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

But fair and simple don't go together in this case. That's the problem.

As for "We, The Peeps", well, wishful thinking.

Until the current system changes, and Proportional Representation gets in with choice for voters and equal power of votes, then nothing will ever change.

And whose fault is that?

The voters'....

 

[yiostheoy]

A consensus seems to be forming that simplification will disproportionately harm blue states because of increased tax flight. However compounding rates of tax flight have been with us for half a century so why the Hysteria now?

It will always hurt the poor. It's only ever expounded by the rich or the right.

It will only hurt the poor and the working poor if they raise taxes on the poor again like GHW Bush did.

This is why Reagan threw GHW out of his house when the latter came to visit the former in retirement.

 

[yiostheoy]

The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...

The answer is a fair and simple tax code.

I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.

The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.

You should try lighting the f@rts that blow out of your bunghole and see if they flare in technicolor, if you think the US tax code can ever be simplified.

This is a typical fantasy of all non-CPA's.

It is a pipe dream fantasy driven and sustained by the fallacy of argument from total ignorance.

 

[yiostheoy]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Taxes based on a code that is applied exactly the same to everyone.

For example:

Federal tax of 15% on all personal income in excess of $40,000 and a federal corporate tax of 3% on all income net of non-executive payroll.

Everyone should know with certainty EXACTLY what everyone else is paying on a percentage basis, because that's what they're paying.

Nobody in this Nation or on this Earth is talking about that.

Maybe you belong on Mars or Venus instead ??

 

[yiostheoy]

The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...

The answer is a fair and simple tax code.

I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.

The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

You really cant base tax on service. If you really wanted to base the tax code on that you would have the poor who use the vast majority of government services paying far more than the rich were.

And no, it is a false narrative that the rich use more government than the poor.

A simple tax code is the only way that it can be fair. There is no measure for government services like access to protected rights, national security and jails. Right now we have the poor paying a larger share of their income than the rich to the federal government. True simplification of the tax code will benefit not only the middle class but the poor as well. It will hose the uber rich as they are the ones that have been manipulating the code to benefit special interests.

It always amazes me that some claim simplifying the tax code will hurt the middle class and poor but then complain that Romney pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. The two concepts are entirely at odds.

But the poor don't use the vast amount of services.

You have to remember that BOTH the poor and rich use things like education. You get given an education, the country gets given an educated worked, and a business gets educated workers. So, education isn't all about the individual, it's about the country and it's about making money.

What about infrastructure? Perhaps a person will use the road twice in a day, maybe a little more sometimes. How much are big corporations using the roads? Probably thousands of times a day to ship products, having employees get to work, having managers going from one place to another. All of this benefits business too.

You think about Iraq, how much did the war and post war period cost the US?

One estimate is $1.1 trillion. Who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the poor. The poor got shot at and killed or maimed. So who made money? Defense contractors, oil companies and shareholders. So, who should be paying for such things?

Who benefits from the stability of the country? Everyone, but the rich are able to get rich from it, so they should be paying their fair share, which is a larger share than your average Joe.\

Look at Somalia, hard to make money and become rich there. Why? There's no security, there's no decent infrastructure.
In Russia in the 1990s the Mafias were basically taking about 30-40% of a company's income just to provide for security. The smaller people needed it less, they had less to steal from, they had less reason to be a target for the mafias. In the US most companies will pay a lot less for security and get everything else for free, basically.

What fair is isn't easy to come by. However it damn well isn't everyone paying the same percentage.

The issue of tax allocation has nothing to do with the poor and the services they utilize.

It has to do with the rich and their reaping great rewards and benefits from society as a result of their windfall.

You need to read Adam Smith's book "The Wealth Of Nations".

You also need to lay off Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto".

 

[yiostheoy]

The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...

The answer is a fair and simple tax code.

I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.

The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

Then "services" (spending) should be limited to what is common.

The government has no business micromanaging the economy by giving tax breaks to industries and business they think deserve an advantage and the government has no business doling out welfare via a the tax code.

Talk about an invitation to fraud, corruption and abuse!

"... promote the general welfare ... ".

You need to re-read the U.S. Constitution before you continue to spout far right wing John Birch propaganda.

 

[yiostheoy]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

You sound like Reagan's rotting corpse.

Note however that this rotten promise of Reagan were never fulfilled.

Nor was the pie in the sky promise of a "balanced budget".

 

[yiostheoy]

The idea behind 'fair and simple' is that everyone gets the same break and everyone pays the same percentage above that break.

Anything else and we're wasting our time.

You also need to read Adam Smith's book "The Wealth Of Nations".

Until you do, or else take a basic college econ course, you will sound as ridiculous as Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

You really cant base tax on service. If you really wanted to base the tax code on that you would have the poor who use the vast majority of government services paying far more than the rich were.

And no, it is a false narrative that the rich use more government than the poor.

A simple tax code is the only way that it can be fair. There is no measure for government services like access to protected rights, national security and jails. Right now we have the poor paying a larger share of their income than the rich to the federal government. True simplification of the tax code will benefit not only the middle class but the poor as well. It will hose the uber rich as they are the ones that have been manipulating the code to benefit special interests.

It always amazes me that some claim simplifying the tax code will hurt the middle class and poor but then complain that Romney pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. The two concepts are entirely at odds.

But the poor don't use the vast amount of services.

You have to remember that BOTH the poor and rich use things like education. You get given an education, the country gets given an educated worked, and a business gets educated workers. So, education isn't all about the individual, it's about the country and it's about making money.

What about infrastructure? Perhaps a person will use the road twice in a day, maybe a little more sometimes. How much are big corporations using the roads? Probably thousands of times a day to ship products, having employees get to work, having managers going from one place to another. All of this benefits business too.

You think about Iraq, how much did the war and post war period cost the US?

One estimate is $1.1 trillion. Who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the poor. The poor got shot at and killed or maimed. So who made money? Defense contractors, oil companies and shareholders. So, who should be paying for such things?

Who benefits from the stability of the country? Everyone, but the rich are able to get rich from it, so they should be paying their fair share, which is a larger share than your average Joe.\

Look at Somalia, hard to make money and become rich there. Why? There's no security, there's no decent infrastructure.
In Russia in the 1990s the Mafias were basically taking about 30-40% of a company's income just to provide for security. The smaller people needed it less, they had less to steal from, they had less reason to be a target for the mafias. In the US most companies will pay a lot less for security and get everything else for free, basically.

What fair is isn't easy to come by. However it damn well isn't everyone paying the same percentage.

The issue of tax allocation has nothing to do with the poor and the services they utilize.

It has to do with the rich and their reaping great rewards and benefits from society as a result of their windfall.

You need to read Adam Smith's book "The Wealth Of Nations".

You also need to lay off Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto".

Oh, yeah, right, I forgot that Bush's tax breaks and shit did SOOOOO well for the US economy.

Basically just because Adam Smith said it 200 years ago, doesn't mean it's valid now.

I'm not saying tax the rich into submission, I'm talking about a FAIR SHARE of taxes, which you are not.

 

[Picaro]

A consensus seems to be forming that simplification will disproportionately harm blue states because of increased tax flight. However compounding rates of tax flight have been with us for half a century so why the Hysteria now?

Anyone bitching about a true simplification of the tax code is taking advantage of the complicated bullshit we currently employ to avoid paying their fair share.

The tax code isn't complex for the majority of filers now. In fact it's is simple for most. I file an average of 14 forms every year, and have no problems with understanding them. Time consuming doesn't equal 'complex', and of course illiterates are going to have 'problems' with anything, not just from trying to read tax booklets and keeping up with the latest rulings and changes. Some companies do face special problems, mostly from hearing some bullshit from a 'tax expert' who doesn't know what he's talking about and they get into trouble later from attempts at cheating, but that isn't because of 'complexity', it's because of tards trying to be clever when they aren't capable of being clever.

I've read all of the so-called 'Fair Tax' bills, and they're all jokes, and all of them are nothing but attempts to shove paying taxes off on the least politically influential demographics and the least able to afford paying more, nothing 'fair' about them at all, just more stupid ideological idiocy. Corporate lobbyists have made the tax code seem 'complex' and having thousands of pages, in order to benefit the corporations paying them to lobby Congress, the more complex it is the better for them at the top of the food chain buying themselves hundreds of loopholes and special industry exemptions to hide income and get out of paying anything at all, not closet commies and socialists out to 'destroy capitalism n stuff'; commie and socialists are just as clueless as your average illiterate New Guinea tribesman about 'tax fairness' and other memes. Just go to the IRS website and see all of the 'private rulings' if you don't believe it's business people themselves who are mainly responsible for the bulk of the tax code.

If you're really worried about taxes then you should be far more concerned about the loosening of GAAP standards, both national and international agreements, beginning with Reagan's Presidency right up to today and how they distort markets and financial statements. Tax reform' isn't even in the top ten things you should be worrying about re accounting and financial issues. Without sound accounting and practices the rest of the stuff is merely fantasy.

 

[Picaro]

Basically just because Adam Smith said it 200 years ago, doesn't mean it's valid now.

Actually much of what he said is valid and spot on. People just like to quote him selectively, and ignore anything else he said that doesn't fit their biases, is all, like people who run around citing bible verses as if they are just all isolated quotes and not part of a larger point or set of points, for example. Adams was even more critical of merchants and their practices and market distortions as he was of governments, and in fact constantly pointed out it was merchants and bankers who determined most government business regulations in the first place. He also gashed them for not paying fair wages and all the rest as well. You might want to read him and then throw him back at those who attempt to use him for some point or other.

 

[Picaro]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

You sound like Reagan's rotting corpse.

Note however that this rotten promise of Reagan were never fulfilled.

Nor was the pie in the sky promise of a "balanced budget".

'Reaganomics' didn't last but a few months; Volcker shut it down as the failure it was. Most of Reagan's 'policies' weren't much different than Carter's, actually, but the Reagan Myth lives on anyway.

 

[Picaro]

You need to read Adam Smith's book "The Wealth Of Nations".

You also need to lay off Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto".

Marx only wrote Book 1 of Das Kapital; the other two were Engel's 'creative editing' and worthless. Book 1 in fact has many valid criticisms, despite all the vitriolic hubris and whining about him. In any case, Marx abandoned his theories when Karl Menger and a few others started publishing their more sophisticated and semi-realistic theories, so he ceased being a major influence on the field of economics, an is merely historically important, not theoretically important.

 

[Picaro]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Taxes based on a code that is applied exactly the same to everyone.

For example:

Federal tax of 15% on all personal income in excess of $40,000 and a federal corporate tax of 3% on all income net of non-executive payroll.

Everyone should know with certainty EXACTLY what everyone else is paying on a percentage basis, because that's what they're paying.

Wages aren't income, and shouldn't be taxed at all. Of course 'modern' political economy invented the 'wages as income' falsehood in order to shift tax burdens off on workers, so it's wildly popular with both government and business to claim wages are 'income'. Your scheme is okay as long as it only includes real income and not just a disguised payroll tax.