CDZ Tax Simplification, Who Will be the Losers

[Skull Pilot]

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.

no the poor get more services

but hey if you want to go to an a la carte government service menu I'm all for it because it would cut my taxes

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

you didn't define fair share

and I agree the government shouldn't be making deals with private businesses or bailing them out

and the corporate tax should be a simple flat tax just like it should be for everyone else

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

you don't seem to realize that commercial freight pays far more in taxes and fees than does the average private commuter

just ask a private long haul trucker how many different state and federal fees he pays

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

education should be left to the states since it was not a Constitutionally granted power of the federal government

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

and you have yet to define what exactly a FAIR SHARE is

 

[Picaro]

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.

you don't seem to realize that commercial freight pays far more in taxes and fees than does the average private commuter

just ask a private long haul trucker how many different state and federal fees he pays

Trucking is only cheap because it's subsidized. No way around that. And no, the fees don't cover the costs, and never did. Gasoline taxes pay for the bulk of roads, including interstates, and spending on roads and bridges is way way down since the 1970's as a percentage of Federal budget items.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

you don't seem to realize that commercial freight pays far more in taxes and fees than does the average private commuter

just ask a private long haul trucker how many different state and federal fees he pays

Trucking is only cheap because it's subsidized. No way around that. And no, the fees don't cover the costs, and never did. Gasoline taxes pay for the bulk of roads, including interstates, and spending on roads and bridges is way way down since the 1970's as a percentage of Federal budget items.

because the feds have raided the Highway Trust fund

 

[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.

no the poor get more services

but hey if you want to go to an a la carte government service menu I'm all for it because it would cut my taxes

No, they don't.

You think with a menu you'd cut taxes? Some might, but the rich certainly wouldn't.

 

[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.

you didn't define fair share

and I agree the government shouldn't be making deals with private businesses or bailing them out

and the corporate tax should be a simple flat tax just like it should be for everyone else

No, I didn't. That would be foolish of me to do so. What is fair is quite complex, hence why anyone who says "simple and fair" I disagree with, it can't be simple and fair.

But no, it shouldn't be a flat tax. This just fucks over the poor.

 

[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.

you don't seem to realize that commercial freight pays far more in taxes and fees than does the average private commuter

just ask a private long haul trucker how many different state and federal fees he pays

What makes you think I don't realize this? Because I didn't say a cow shits out of its ass, you could also assume I didn't realize that, right? Do I have to state everything I know EVERY TIME I mention something, otherwise I get told I don't know it?

 

[rightwinger]

As a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference

Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

and you have yet to define what exactly a FAIR SHARE is

Again, I know. I can't tell you what a fair share is. All I can tell you is that a fair share is going to be based around how much people benefit from the govt.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference

Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't

And they know it, which is why they're pushing it.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

We are still living with the Reagan tax rates

 

[william the wie]

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 really depends on the implementation of the tax simplification. However, our tax code is so complex that we really do need to invest in simplifying it...it is an unnecessary bureaucratic mess.

With that said, there are good reasons for some of the exemptions and complexities that are out there, but I would rather have a soft "tax reset" back to a simple base, and then force Congress to re-approve these measures rather than being happy with the morass of our tax code as it stands just because there are some reasons for some of the way that it is.

Got to agree

 

[Picaro]

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.

We are still living with the Reagan tax rates

Carter cut capital gains taxes before Reagan did, and by a bigger percentage. Reagan merely copied Carter's agenda, including his '600 ship Navy' and expanding military budgets policy plans.

 

[william the wie]

The old adage of where you stand depends on where you sit sure applies to this thread.

 

[Picaro]

The old adage of where you stand depends on where you sit sure applies to this thread.

Well, the tax forms I fill out aren't 'complex', there are just more of them as my sources of income multiplied, is all. Again, the vast bulk of the tax code doesn't effect most filers, so it doesn't really matter how large the code is, as most of it isn't relevant to any one individual's filings. They don't have to read but a few small booklets at most.

Most of these 'tax simplification' and 'fair tax' schemes are just attempts at shoving taxes onto payrolls and assorted high ad valorems on working stiffs purchases, not genuine 'reforms' or 'fairness'.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

We are still living with the Reagan tax rates

Carter cut capital gains taxes before Reagan did, and by a bigger percentage. Reagan merely copied Carter's agenda, including his '600 ship Navy' and expanding military budgets policy plans.

Reagan slashed taxes on the highest tax rate as well as capital gains

 

[Picaro]

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.

We are still living with the Reagan tax rates

Carter cut capital gains taxes before Reagan did, and by a bigger percentage. Reagan merely copied Carter's agenda, including his '600 ship Navy' and expanding military budgets policy plans.

Reagan slashed taxes on the highest tax rate as well as capital gains

What? He merely lowered the rates Carter had already lowered, except Reagan also went after waitresses and proles while ignoring the largest cheats, and he also raised gasoline and other taxes, despite all the noise about him 'cutting taxes'; that's how he 'increased revenue while cutting taxes', he didn't really 'cut taxes' overall, he raised them, and shifted more of the tax burden down to the proles. The right wing ideologues just like to lie about how that actually worked out