How This Democrat Views Taxation

[hornadylnl]

I'm cool with that. I don't want trickle up or down economics. I want true unfettered markets. I want Laissez Faire capitalism. I want businesses and corporations to pay absolutely zero in taxes of any form. I'm sure you can tell I won't have many supporters of my economic opinions here.

ETA. I think trickle down economics works more than you give it credit for. It just takes time. Trickle up is the principle of taking a business's money and giving it to the poor so they can shop at the business and give them their own money back. How is wealth created there?

 

[ghostinthewood]

While I disagree with you strongly, you seem reasonable. So don't take this the wrong way because in the short time I've been here, it seems like there aren't a lot of reasonable people..

I think that its easy to say something works when you wait on it. Eventually things get better, no matter what, so its too easy to say such-and-such was the cause because we waited.

You do have a good point on the trickle-up economics. However, I think...rather know... economics is very complicated and trying to simplify economic ideologies to pissing up or down is silly. I don't think there is an easy answer. However, complicated answers sometimes involve compromise and that boring politics. =o

 

[hornadylnl]

Actually, I think what's screwed economics up so much is that everybody makes it way more complicated than what it really is. Economics is greed. As a consumer, I loom for a product that provides the best possible product for the best possible price. A producer tries to get the best possible price for his product. As a consumer, I have nobody's interests in mind but my own. If a producer fails to provide what I need at the price I want, I move on to the next one.

We as a society have demonized greed to the point of hurting the economy. We all work to our own self interests. I want the best good or service for the best price. If a producer wants to make profit, he needs to provide what I want or he loses my business to someone else. The producer produces to line his own pockets, not because he wants to provide a jobs program for the greater good.

If you haven't already read them, I suggest Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and anything by Ludwig Von Mises.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I mentioned earlier I obviously get greed for competition, however its never that simple. If it was, we wouldn't've had problems with Halliburton, golden parachutes, and lobbyists.

However, the discussion is winding down to a point where I think we'll simple have to disagree. =p

 

[rockhopper46038]

I wish my bar tab was only $100.

 

[Trading_Fool]

I wish my bar tab was only $100.

Lets get together and try to calculate the tax before the waitress. lol

 

[John Galt]

1) Eliminate our confiscatory abomination of our current tax code and implement the Fairtax.
2) Let people realize the consequences of their decisions, good or bad, and quit bailing out (subsidizing) failure, corporate AND individual. Let nature work!
3) Keep the playing field level and get rid of over-reaching, intentionally prohibitive regulation. If I want to offer a product that would compete with Microsoft, I shouldn't have to deal with strangling regulations that only Big Business can afford to deal with (attorneys, accountants, and lobbyists).
4) Full, complete, private-sector type audit of the Fed that any private business would be subjected to.
5) Stick to these rules, no matter how bad it would get. Like any addict, America is going to have to go through a SEVERE withdrawal to cleanse itself, but at least our children will have a fighting chance at what we have pissed away.

 

[ChrisK]

1) Eliminate our confiscatory abomination of our current tax code and implement the Fairtax.
2) Let people realize the consequences of their decisions, good or bad, and quit bailing out (subsidizing) failure, corporate AND individual. Let nature work!
3) Keep the playing field level and get rid of over-reaching, intentionally prohibitive regulation. If I want to offer a product that would compete with Microsoft, I shouldn't have to deal with strangling regulations that only Big Business can afford to deal with (attorneys, accountants, and lobbyists).
4) Full, complete, private-sector type audit of the Fed that any private business would be subjected to.
5) Stick to these rules, no matter how bad it would get. Like any addict, America is going to have to go through a SEVERE withdrawal to cleanse itself, but at least our children will have a fighting chance at what we have pissed away.

I totally agree. We need to push for the fair tax.

 

[ol' trucker]

HEAR,HEAR!!!!!

This was sent to me and I find that I agree, mostly.

TAXATION EXPLAINED TO THE MASSES
Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a buck too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy always win!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, labor unions and fellow Democrats, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

As a caveat, I don't personally believe that able-bodied and unproductive members of society should receive any long term benefit.

Flame on brothers.

 

[navarre1095]

Of course, the way we actually do it is that the first four men also get refunds (EIC) even though they never spent a dime.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Of course, the way we actually do it is that the first four men also get refunds (EIC) even though they never spent a dime.

So true. In that respect, the idea being floated of reducing the payroll tax of only the people who are paying it is an idea I can get behind.

 

[Ramen]

I mentioned earlier I obviously get greed for competition, however its never that simple. If it was, we wouldn't've had problems with Halliburton, golden parachutes, and lobbyists.

However, the discussion is winding down to a point where I think we'll simple have to disagree. =p

I don't understand what golden parachutes and lobbyists have to do with a truly free market economy? It seems that using the government to give yourself an advantage is not capitalism and is instead corporatism or socialism.

hornadylnl was talking about Capitalism, not the corporatist economic system the United States currently has.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I don't understand what golden parachutes and lobbyists have to do with a truly free market economy? It seems that using the government to give yourself an advantage is not capitalism and is instead corporatism or socialism.

hornadylnl was talking about Capitalism, not the corporatist economic system the United States currently has.

Hmm you make a good point, but I was just trying to make a quick one. This is an hyper-conservative forum and I'm afraid if I leak a little liberalism I may get shot or something because liberals are evil and dumb and want to eat your babies. o.o

In all seriousness, I was assuming that most people think we have a capitalistic society and I was just pointing out flaws that people would make sense if people did buy in to that notion. Such as, corporations screw people over and dont get punished for it because they have enough money to get away with it. If the free market worked the way people assumes it works assuming we're capitalistic then I think my point is pretty valid. However, you guys didnt take the bait. Drats. =p

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, we are a hybrid economy due to the passing of laws that give one producer an unfair advantage over another, through subsidy, tax reduction, or otherwise.

However! Even if a company is "screwing someone" and getting rich, what do they do with all their riches? Do they buy yachts and private jets and champagne? Sure. Who makes the yachts and private jets and champagne? Who cut the wood to make the yacht? Who mined the ore to make the jet? Who worked the vineyard to make the champagne?

Often times we protect the interests of a few, those who are being "screwed", to the detriment of hundreds and thousands of others.

For isntance. US Steel workers demanded a pay raise. The government came to their aid and basically forced them to be employed at a higher rate, by increasing the tariff on imported steel to the point that it was cheaper to pay a higher labor rate than it was to import. That protected a couple hundred of people from gettting "screwed". However, for the steel producer to stay in business, he has to raise steel prices a like amount of the wage increase.

Now, everything that is made of steel costs more. Did all of the consumers, that buy products made of steel, get the same wage increase as the steel worker to compensate for this increase in price? Did the standard of living go up or down as a result of artificially incresing the wage of a few?

Taxes work in a like manner, since tax is merely a cost to doing business.

By protecting one class of citizen, the remainder are hurt. I would argue that tax increases on the rich are actually regressive, since the end result is an increase in the price of goods and a reduction in the amount of goods being produced, which will always affect the poor much more than it would affect the rich.

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

Class warfare is always a good method to rile the troops of the left. Interesting isn't it that they are the one's who preach how evil greed is and yet they themselves are greed personified when it comes to hating anyone with more than they have.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Yes, we are a hybrid economy due to the passing of laws that give one producer an unfair advantage over another, through subsidy, tax reduction, or otherwise.

However! Even if a company is "screwing someone" and getting rich, what do they do with all their riches? Do they buy yachts and private jets and champagne? Sure. Who makes the yachts and private jets and champagne? Who cut the wood to make the yacht? Who mined the ore to make the jet? Who worked the vineyard to make the champagne?

Often times we protect the interests of a few, those who are being "screwed", to the detriment of hundreds and thousands of others.

For isntance. US Steel workers demanded a pay raise. The government came to their aid and basically forced them to be employed at a higher rate, by increasing the tariff on imported steel to the point that it was cheaper to pay a higher labor rate than it was to import. That protected a couple hundred of people from gettting "screwed". However, for the steel producer to stay in business, he has to raise steel prices a like amount of the wage increase.

Now, everything that is made of steel costs more. Did all of the consumers, that buy products made of steel, get the same wage increase as the steel worker to compensate for this increase in price? Did the standard of living go up or down as a result of artificially incresing the wage of a few?

Taxes work in a like manner, since tax is merely a cost to doing business.

By protecting one class of citizen, the remainder are hurt. I would argue that tax increases on the rich are actually regressive, since the end result is an increase in the price of goods and a reduction in the amount of goods being produced, which will always affect the poor much more than it would affect the rich.

This would be a great argument if so many things weren't outsourced. For reals, I would buy that completely if China wasn't still putting lead into things. =p

 

[malern28us]

Not at all the point I was making. Someone alluded to trickle down economics. It doesn't work that way. Our economy has recovered, but the job market is still down (though better than what it was).

I said nothing close to saying efficiency was bad. I just said a certain theory doesn't always work in real life.

Please explain. What data are you basing your assumptions on? Could it be the fact that unemployment goes down because people have been unemployed for so long they arent counted? Or would it be the fact that a huge percentage are getting Federal assistance now? I would assume you are basing your opinion on the fact that the governament is trying to extend unemployment for the "recovering" masses so that consumers will continue to spend?
Please give an example of one economist who isnt paid by Obama that says that our economy has "recovered."

 

[dsol]

However! Even if a company is "screwing someone" and getting rich, what do they do with all their riches? Do they buy yachts and private jets and champagne? Sure. Who makes the yachts and private jets and champagne? Who cut the wood to make the yacht? Who mined the ore to make the jet? Who worked the vineyard to make the champagne?

The "luxury tax" put a lot of middle class people out of work. I am pretty sure that is a proven fact, that after the so called luxury tax went into effect, less big ticket items were purchased, therefore the places that made or sold them here in the US had to downsize.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Please explain. What data are you basing your assumptions on? Could it be the fact that unemployment goes down because people have been unemployed for so long they arent counted? Or would it be the fact that a huge percentage are getting Federal assistance now? I would assume you are basing your opinion on the fact that the governament is trying to extend unemployment for the "recovering" masses so that consumers will continue to spend?
Please give an example of one economist who isnt paid by Obama that says that our economy has "recovered."

First, you prove that EVERY economist who has said our economy is recovered is paid by Obama. Mind you, the economy can recover without employment rates going up dramatically. I think your claim is much more grand than mine...

 

[ATOMonkey]

This would be a great argument if so many things weren't outsourced. For reals, I would buy that completely if China wasn't still putting lead into things. =p

What is wrong with outsourcing? For millenia countries have used economic advantage in order to trade with other countries, effectively outsourcing something that was hard or costly for them to make to someone who could make it easily for less.

What this does is increase efficiency in the market place. If you're paying $100 for a kids toy, you're going to buy less of them. When you buy less of something you decrease the revenue to that firm, and they in turn have to lay off workers.

There is also an increase in opportunity cost when you pay an artificially high price for something. If you would have bought the less expensive product, you could have also bought a sandwich or maybe another toy, gone on vacation, any number of things.

It's all about getting more for less. Also remember that wealth is measured in possessions as well as currency. Just because you have a lot of currency you are not wealthy if the price of goods and services are also very high.

Also, we have a progressive income tax scale. That means, it costs you more to earn each additional dollar. So, it stands to reason that lower wages, and lower prices, and thus lower taxes equates to more buying power and thus more wealth and a higher standard of living.

The thing people don't like about outsourcing is that it is forcing them to learn a new skill or any skill for that matter.

In regard to lead paint. That's certainly nothing new. In fact, everything made in the USA contained lead up until about 30 years ago.

All of your ceramic and glass dishes that you eat off, even if made in America probably contain copious amounts of lead due to the the glaze.

If lead really bothers you though, you don't have to spend your money on Chinese products. You can spend it on good old made in the USA stuff.

So once again, if the market really cared where things were made it would self correct.