OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

Page 3 of 8  
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:33:06 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Dividends are also capital gains, and taxed (at least) twice.

True.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 21, 12:48 am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Dividends are *not* capital gains, though they too receive special tax treatment. Capital gain is strictly the profit from the SALE of an asset. Dividends are an income stream from a stock. As such, your claim of double taxation is most clearly applicable to dividends. In the case of a stock, it's less clear. Best example of that would be the internet bubble of 2000. You had people taking huge profits in stocks that had no earnings and where the companies never paid taxes. If those captial gains were not taxed, there would have been no profit paid at all on the gains, by the company, etc.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The best specifics I could find was that Buffet had a total reported income of $63mil and paid $7mil in tax. Even if you had a 20% sales tax rate, he would have to have spent $35mil to generate a sales tax equal to what he paid under the current system. Anyone here believe Buffet is spending $35mil a year? More likely he's spending just a few million a year, if that. Meaning under a sales tax based system, he would pay far less. Take a look at Romney or any other top earner's incomes that are public and I'd like to see one where a sales tax system would yield the govt anywhere near the same amount.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The yield would be in eliminating a great deal of bureaucracy and wasted effort.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Why is that a "problem?"
The rich use fewer government services than the poor. The rich don't send their kids to government schools, use the county hospital, collect rent suppliments or food stamps. Oh, the rich should pay SOMETHING. After all, they are driven on public roads and use federal airspace. But the poor use far more tax-supported services, both absolutely and per capita, so fairness dictates they pay more.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a problem because it shifts more of the tax burden on those with little or modest incomes. The poor and middle class would get socked. I have no problem with a tax system that is graduated to some degree, nor do I think most people do. Also, those rich people benefitted from the infrastructure. Shouldn't the rich pay a lot more for the military to in part, protect their wealth, than the guy making $10,000?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I agree, as I stated above, the rich should pay SOMETHING.
The consequence of low or no tax on those of modest means allows them to buy stuff they want but don't really need, which, in turn, profits those who own the companies that make Twinkies, iPhones, 52" TV sets, and other stuff. These increased sales drive up the profit of the manufacturers (or importers) and they get taxed on their stock dividends.
The modest-income people have to pay more for the product or service to accommodate the tax their betters pay, so I guess it averages out.
Still, it is disturbing, at some level, that 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I'd be a little more supportive if someone could give me a definition of "fair share" that did not, in essence, boil down to "what offends me personally".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The only reasonable definition of "fair share" IMHO is that above a certain threshold level designed to protect the working poor from having to pay *any* tax, everyone pays the same rate.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are getting closer, I'll have to admit. Now, define working poor objectively. (g).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm comfortable with using the Federal government's definition of the poverty level, perhaps by applying some multiplier. Seems to me it should be based on family size.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most plans seem to suggest something like 150 or 200% of poverty line as a cutoff for things like school lunches, etc. The poverty levels are based on family size and are even higher for Alaska and Hawaii. Just for the heck of it. 2011, poverty level in the US for single person is over $20,000. Average per capita income in Africa was around $4,000.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:15:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

It will never happen. Best is a flat income tax or even something like Cain's 9-9-9. At least there is a way of getting there from here.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite effect. Think it through: who spends more, the rich or the poor?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ummmm, yes.
This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.
Current income taxes are on a graduated scale. The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.
With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away. Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.
Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income. The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income, thereby deferring any sales tax paid.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Depends on how it is structured, although that causes additional problems of its own. For instance most state sales taxes don't include most food, housing, health care, etc. This addresses these issues to a certain extent.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed.
Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan. They all have "unspecified offsets".
Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then it's a huge benefit to the rich.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Is that a bad thing? After all, rich people buy stuff, and hire others.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then it's a huge benefit to the rich.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suppose that makes sense... To you.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It makes sense to a lot of us.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.