Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: New Tax Structure - Why the Rich are Rich

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    New Tax Structure - Why the Rich are Rich

    Actually, not so new. Regardless...

    How would you like to fill out your entire tax form on the back of a postcard (with a security flap, of course)? This quote from Beretta92FSLady got me thinking:

    Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.
    My opinion is if the rich came to be rich by dishonest gain, they should be jailed, not taxed. If it was by dishonest gain, then they're simply enjoying the fruits of their labors. If they're involved in collusive or monopolistic business practices where they're "the only game in town" and charging ridiculously high prices, then shame on them, yes, but shame on the customers supporting their efforts, too.

    Capitalism is a good thing in theory, and mostly so in practice. Competition drives the price down. In 1986 I paid $2,500 for a computer. In today's dollars, it would cost $5,150. Yet my current computer cost $1,000, is approximately 500 times faster, with 9x the screen resolution, 2 Million times more colors, and 83 Thousand times more hard drive storage. The reduction is two-fold: Better technology and lower prices. However, it's competition that drove the search for better technology. If no one had entered the market with a PC clone, we'd still be paying three times what we pay for computers today, but they would have made less than half as much progress.

    The problem is, our government itself has no competition to drive progress. There's little incentive for real improvements! Furthermore, there is a tremendous incentive for pork-barreling, particularly when it comes to the bloated industry known as the U.S. Tax Code.

    So, to drive progress, we must create incentives, such as letting the politicians know how idiotic they look by not implementing the following:

    *** Top of Post Card ***

    Total Income From All Sources (TIFAS): $100,000
    Poverty Floor (from Table 1 on reverse side): $18,314
    Cost of living adjustment factor (by zip code, from attached piece of paper): 1.035

    Net Taxable Income = TIFAS - (PF * COLA Factor)
    = $100,000 - ($18,134 * 1.035)
    = $100,000 - $18,768.69
    = $81,231

    Tax = Net Taxable Income * 10%
    = $81,231 * .1
    = $8,123

    Tax Owed (Refund) = Tax - Tax Witheld = $8,123 - $9,432 = ($1,309)

    *** Bottom of Post Card ***

    Explanation:

    COLA Factor adjusts the poverty level based upon where one happens to live, and is designed to adjust the poverty level for local variances in prices. Many such online COLA tables exist today, and are commonly used by people seeking employment elsewhere to adjust what they're currently making so they know what to ask in the new location.

    Table 1: Columns include Single, Married, and Separated, while rows indicate the number of qualified dependents living with the individual for more than 50% of the year. The poverty level reflects a standardized base income required for food, clothing, and shelter. It should not include anything beyond the bare minimums required to sustain life. Obviously, electricity and water would be included. Cable TV, however, would not.

    Here's the neat thing about this approach: If the Tax is negative, that is, if one is below the poverty level, that amount could be divided in half and given to the person in lieu of food stamps and the 1,000's of other programs that are out there.

    Benefits:

    1. Little or no overhead. Say "bye-bye" to most people in parasitic professions such as accountants, tax attorneys, and IRS employees.

    2. So easy to use, who wouldn't use it?

    3. Built-in aid for those who're unable to get by otherwise, but halved in order to provide an incentive for them to obtain gainful employment.

    As for taxing the rich, if they earn $100,000, then they pay $8,123 in taxes. If they earn $10,000,000, then they pay $998,123 in taxes.

    What could be more fair?

    Want more insulation? Pay for it yourself. Without government incentives, the market will either adjust to accommodate it, or it'll dry up altogether.

    Want a bigger house? Earn enough and buy it yourself.

    Have you inherited your money? It's taxed only once, and at a rate that's affordable. If you invest it, you're taxed only on the additional earnings, and then only when you withdraw the funds.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Well the question that comes to my mind is.......Why should the vultures even get 10% ? lol
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    Well the question that comes to my mind is.......Why should the vultures even get 10% ? lol
    +1

    I liked Ron Paul's response in an interview or debate, (paraphrase) "Well, I tend more towards a flat tax. Of course, I want it to be zero."

    My kinda guy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Deadcenter45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SW Oregon Coast
    Posts
    32
    This makes too much sense.

    I don't know what would be any fairer.


    I was thinking the vary same thing, only I can't put it into words like this.


    Android 2.3.3 + Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It is still a tax on productivity. It still needs an IRS to which we citizens are required to send personal information and from which we have much to fear.

    Check out the Fair Tax at fairtax.org. It taxes consumption above the poverty level. It taxes only the consumption of new products, regardless of nation of origin, which stops the targeting of our own products for taxation. It puts us in control of how much tax we pay. The IRS can be dismantled. Whatever taxing agency replaces it will not require everyone to violate their own 5A rights on a regular basis.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    I would probably prefer the "fair tax" over the the way the "income" tax is being implemented. But the "fair tax" as I understand it, could not be implemented by congress alone. It would require a constitutional amendment.

    I could be incorrect but I think that so far the folks trying to implement the "fair tax" have not been trying to do so with a constitutional amendment, but with congressional legislation alone.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I would probably prefer the "fair tax" over the the way the "income" tax is being implemented. But the "fair tax" as I understand it, could not be implemented by congress alone. It would require a constitutional amendment.

    I could be incorrect but I think that so far the folks trying to implement the "fair tax" have not been trying to do so with a constitutional amendment, but with congressional legislation alone.
    Well, a constitutional amendment is necessary anyway to strip the constitutionality of the income tax system. It is the single greatest danger to Liberty that is built into our constitution.

    A flat tax is a good step on the way to restoring sanity and Liberty to our tax structure, but the income tax (and the IRS) has to go!

    The bottom line is that because a journey is going to take a million steps is no reason not to take that first step. Step 1 is electing folks who support eliminating the income tax.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    [snip] This quote from Beretta92FSLady got me thinking:
    I got you thinking...that's always a nice thing. (I hate these new faces)

    My opinion is if the rich came to be rich by dishonest gain, they should be jailed, not taxed. ...
    Agreed.

    Capitalism is a good thing in theory, and mostly so in practice. Competition drives the price down. In 1986 I paid $2,500 for a computer. In today's dollars, it would cost $5,150. Yet my current computer cost $1,000, is approximately 500 times faster, with 9x the screen resolution, 2 Million times more colors, and 83 Thousand times more hard drive storage. The reduction is two-fold: Better technology and lower prices. However, it's competition that drove the search for better technology. If no one had entered the market with a PC clone, we'd still be paying three times what we pay for computers today, but they would have made less than half as much progress.

    The problem is, our government itself has no competition to drive progress. There's little incentive for real improvements! Furthermore, there is a tremendous incentive for pork-barreling, particularly when it comes to the bloated industry known as the U.S. Tax Code.
    Business (apple) have a business model (well, the successful ones) that makes possible through production, ingenuity, etc. the circumstances which consumption is made possible, the product is consumed, and the business is paid for the service. I should point out that if given a choice, individuals would take saving a buck-or-two over quality. But I digress. Government (orange) is not for profit (if considered a business entity). Meaning, the money that is brought in is merely from mandated 'donations' (taxes), and dispersed, well, we experience where some of the funds are dispersed when we go to the kitchen, and fill a glass with water from the faucet, and/or flush the toilette after we, well, you know.

    So, to drive progress, we must create incentives, such as letting the politicians know how idiotic they look by not implementing the following:

    *** Top of Post Card ***

    Total Income From All Sources (TIFAS): $100,000
    Poverty Floor (from Table 1 on reverse side): $18,314
    Cost of living adjustment factor (by zip code, from attached piece of paper): 1.035

    Net Taxable Income = TIFAS - (PF * COLA Factor)
    = $100,000 - ($18,134 * 1.035)
    = $100,000 - $18,768.69
    = $81,231

    Tax = Net Taxable Income * 10%
    = $81,231 * .1
    = $8,123

    Tax Owed (Refund) = Tax - Tax Witheld = $8,123 - $9,432 = ($1,309)

    *** Bottom of Post Card ***

    Explanation:

    COLA Factor adjusts the poverty level based upon where one happens to live, and is designed to adjust the poverty level for local variances in prices. Many such online COLA tables exist today, and are commonly used by people seeking employment elsewhere to adjust what they're currently making so they know what to ask in the new location.

    Table 1: Columns include Single, Married, and Separated, while rows indicate the number of qualified dependents living with the individual for more than 50% of the year. The poverty level reflects a standardized base income required for food, clothing, and shelter. It should not include anything beyond the bare minimums required to sustain life. Obviously, electricity and water would be included. Cable TV, however, would not.

    Here's the neat thing about this approach: If the Tax is negative, that is, if one is below the poverty level, that amount could be divided in half and given to the person in lieu of food stamps and the 1,000's of other programs that are out there.

    Benefits:

    1. Little or no overhead. Say "bye-bye" to most people in parasitic professions such as accountants, tax attorneys, and IRS employees.

    2. So easy to use, who wouldn't use it?

    3. Built-in aid for those who're unable to get by otherwise, but halved in order to provide an incentive for them to obtain gainful employment.

    As for taxing the rich, if they earn $100,000, then they pay $8,123 in taxes. If they earn $10,000,000, then they pay $998,123 in taxes.

    What could be more fair?

    Want more insulation? Pay for it yourself. Without government incentives, the market will either adjust to accommodate it, or it'll dry up altogether.

    Want a bigger house? Earn enough and buy it yourself.

    Have you inherited your money? It's taxed only once, and at a rate that's affordable. If you invest it, you're taxed only on the additional earnings, and then only when you withdraw the funds.
    For the most part I agree that something along these lines would be acceptable...with the exception of some of your anti-Government rhetoric. You did well sticking to specifics without bringing in the loads of political baggage most individuals carry. Slow, should take note of this
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I am fairly certain that what was defined as the general Welfare of the United States back then is not how it is defined today.
    i.e. "... the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity, as in 'one must look out for their own welfare'" as opposed to "government handout."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I would probably prefer the "fair tax" over the the way the "income" tax is being implemented. But the "fair tax" as I understand it, could not be implemented by congress alone. It would require a constitutional amendment.

    I could be incorrect but I think that so far the folks trying to implement the "fair tax" have not been trying to do so with a constitutional amendment, but with congressional legislation alone.
    There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits congress from implementing a consumption tax, hence, no Constitutional amendment is needed to do so. The Constitutional amendment that would be needed is to repeal the 16th amendment so we would not wind up with both, an income tax and a consumption tax, which would most certainly happen if 16A is not repealed FIRST. The income tax is the most repressive tax there is. BTW, a heavy and progressive income tax is also one of the ten planks of the communists manifesto.

    IMHO, the fairtax is the only way to go. Imagine the jobs that would migrate back to the U.S. if there were no corporate taxes at all. Some say that the citizenry would be paying all the tax and that corporations would be tax free. Well, we pay it all anyway. If taxes are raised on corporations now, they simply raise the price of goods and services to cover the increased cost of doing business.

    Libs, and a lot of republicans, don't want to see it because they would not be able to carry on with their social engineering. Now they can say, "Hey, John Q. Citizen, we are going to give you a tax break................if you do what we want you to do or buy what we want you to buy". That is social engineering in my book and I am sick of it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits congress from implementing a consumption tax, hence, no Constitutional amendment is needed to do so. The Constitutional amendment that would be needed is to repeal the 16th amendment so we would not wind up with both, an income tax and a consumption tax, which would most certainly happen if 16A is not repealed FIRST. The income tax is the most repressive tax there is. BTW, a heavy and progressive income tax is also one of the ten planks of the communists manifesto.
    Agreed. Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."

    Tax: "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes" - Source
    Duty: "a tax on imports" - Source
    Impost: "An import or export tariff (also called customs duty or impost) is a charge for the movement of goods through a political border." - Source
    Excise: " an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity" and " any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee"

    Congress has Constitutional authority to levy an income tax. It has a moral imperative, however, not to strangle the country with excessive income taxes. I believe a 10% tax on all gross income, with minor, post-card-sized adjustments (including a poverty floor) is just fine. The current taxes, however, are not. The government claims they're "needed" only because the government bought way too many pricey toys and programs over the years than it should have.

    I stand firm that an adjustment in the poverty floor for various geographic areas would not violate the Constitution, which requires uniformity for duties, imposts, and excises, but not for taxes.

    IMHO, the fairtax is the only way to go. Imagine the jobs that would migrate back to the U.S. if there were no corporate taxes at all. Some say that the citizenry would be paying all the tax and that corporations would be tax free. Well, we pay it all anyway. If taxes are raised on corporations now, they simply raise the price of goods and services to cover the increased cost of doing business.
    I see nothing wrong with that. Indeed, many countries operate that way just fine, as do quite a few States here in the U.S.

    Libs, and a lot of republicans, don't want to see it because they would not be able to carry on with their social engineering. Now they can say, "Hey, John Q. Citizen, we are going to give you a tax break................if you do what we want you to do or buy what we want you to buy". That is social engineering in my book and I am sick of it.
    I'm sick of it, too. In addition to the personal income tax plan I outlined below, I believe corporations should be taxed on net income. Having been an accountant way back when for a mining engineering firm, I see the need for a good portion of the corporate tax code. However, I also see that much of it results in so little benefit to corporate America that corporations would be better off with a vastly more simple tax code.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •