Rest iN peace, Mr. Jobs

Page 3 of 10  
wrote:

We need to simplify the tax code by eliminating many of the loopholes and preferences, and tax the wealthier at higher effective rates. Both corporations and individuals. Payroll taxes have been going up, as have state and local as well as sales taxes. That has put more and more of the burden on lower wage earners, while higher wage earners and those not relying on earned income have gotten a break. It's time to put more purchasing power in the hands of lower income people.
And, while not really rich, I always have been comfortable.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

The REAL inequity is that 49% of the population pays NO taxes at all! How is that fair?
I'm with you on eliminating loopholes. There are two goals of the tax system as it is currently implemented: 1. To raise revenue. 2. To foster (or suppress) social activity.
For example, we think that home ownership is a worthwhile thing, so we give a tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. We think smoking is bad, so we put a confiscatory tax on cigarettes.
Only if you are willing to give up the social goals sometimes associated with taxation will you be able to make the tax system "fair."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obviously that is NOT true. It only holds for federal income taxes, and is in part due to the fact that we as society through our representatives have created a tax code that gives credits for living. Employed people pay payroll taxes (some of that paid by the employer), they pay state taxes and sales taxes, and whether or not they own their homes, they pay property and school taxes.

And to foster or suppress economic activities (this is important too). We all directly or indirectly agreed to the system at some point. But now the system has become burdensome by complexity and inequitable because it created (intended AND unintended) loopholes and special circumstances. Some of those were created by hanky panky. There should be an independent nonpartisan committee that examines the "special categories" and explains who and what the consequences are of each special condition in the tax code.

Yes indeed!! The social and economic goals need to be reexamined over time. Is this or that special condition still what we all want? Or shuld home mortgage interest over a certain amount NOT be deductible anymore? The AMT was a way to limit deductibility, but the asses didn't put in a cost of living escalation clause, so now the AMT is applied to people who aren't that wealthy. Is that right?
I'm sure you and I and others can keep going on ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

I stand corrected due to an omission. Let me re-phrase.
"The REAL inequity is that 49% of the populaton pays NO income taxes at all! How is that fair? (In fact, a goodly proportion get money FROM the federal government in the form of 'earned income tax credits'. How is THAT fair?) Buncha freeloaders, you ask me."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That doesn't change anything. Those people who "freeload" on federal income taxes still pay all those other taxes. If you really want all taxes to go per person, rather than be adjusted for total income, you really would have to raise the incomes at the lower end by 2 or 3 fold. Unless you want violent revolution.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/13/2011 4:55 PM, Han wrote:

Any change would have to be "gradual". Those that are paying no federal taxes would begin to pay federal taxes, small amounts that would increase over the years. Hopefully when they have to start paying the government and not milking the government they will look for the government to also be more responsible. There are exceptions but many abuse the system.
I could be completely off here but I really believe that many officials get elected over and over again because of the promises of what the government can do for the voters. I fell that one segment of voters are strictly looking for the elected to give hand outs.
EVENTUALLY quit giving hand outs and make every one contribute and I feel the government will improve. But then all governments are corrupt and always will be. Sigh!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm with you here. One of the reasons the economy is still flat on its back is that there is too much change. Rapid change is bad.

Sure. Remember, after the last election, where people were being interviewed who thought they wouldn't have to pay their mortgages or buy gas anymore? "Obama will take care of me!"

Yes.
Which is the reason that they must be as small as possible, if not smaller. The only way damage can be minimized is if government doesn't have the power to damage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:35:43 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Replace "governments" with "corporations" - heck, replace it with "people" - the end result will be the same.
Unless you can change human nature, we're all whistling past the graveyard.
But a limit on the amount of money in any form that any one can accumulate might work for a few years until the unscrupulous find a way around it. It's difficult to amass power without money.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:46:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

The government will always be larger than any corporation. I can't imagine one person being larger than 312M.

SO we just give in to the totalitarians?

What a steaming pile of male bovine dung.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

"Raise the incomes at the lower end"???
Do you mean increase the minimum wage? Heck, many making the minimum wage aren't worth that much. Raising the minimum wage would result, mostly, in a spike in unemployment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybewe could agree on that, but if you increase taxes on people who are already having trouble coping in this economy, then where are they going to get the money to pay the increased taxes?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/12/2011 9:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years to fully implement.
Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?
A fact, a great number of voters do not pay taxes and expect the government to take care of them. One political party uses these voters to keep them in office. Take away the freebies and make everyone pay their fair share and see what happen with government. No more playing favorites. Every one will expect the government to trim down and act responsibly because that will lower everyone's taxes. If you don't pay taxes you really don't care whether the government is going farther into debt or not. We need to get the government back to doing what it was intended to do, defend out country and maintain the infrastructure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds good, but what you are asking for is a national sales tax. And then we'd have to up the wages of lower earning people somehow so they can pay those taxes. And what are you going to do with people who like to revel in luxury versus the frugal ones? Levy a luxury tax on luxury items? In the way the Europeans have different scales of VAT for different classes of merchandise? Remember that over there VAT goes up to at least 20% for certain things. (VAT is always included in the sale price).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/13/2011 05:40 AM, Leon wrote:

Limit Federal voter eligibility to active military, vets and those who pay income tax. As Obama says "you have to have some skin in the game".
--
"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to
blame somebody else." -John Burroughs
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/13/2011 8:10 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

That would probably be a good start to my putting my plan in place. Basically, if you have nothing to loose you don't care as much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate, advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was about 250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.
That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.
Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?
They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for ten months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax Withdrawal Plan).
Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four children? She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're certainly not going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can contribute a kidney and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her brood for five years (longer if she contributes blood platelets too). At the end of five years, perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the time ten years have passed, her offspring would be on their own and having their own tax issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That sort of thing was done years ago. (I'm not exactly sure of the details). They were testing antimalarial drugs, and used prisoners as "volunteers". I think they were promised reduced sentences or so. Some of those prisoners were black. Blacks have a disproportionally high incidence of G6PDH deficiency, and got very sick or died from one or another of those drugs. Like those people who had syphilis, and they really wanted to document the progress of the disease. So they treated them with placebo. I had to memorize all those atrocities for our "human use" submissions for our research. I'm busily trying to forget most of that. Oh yes, this was in the USA, not Nazi Germany.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/13/2011 4:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Add the possibility of donating community service for those that cannot afford to pay their taxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@swbelldotnet says...

Oh, now you want slave labor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

GE, and others, paid not taxes because they qualified for various social-goal tax forgiveness. To the extent these companies participated in these legislatively-approved social goals, they should be applauded, not demonized.
You, me, and our fellow voters encouraged GE's participation. GE didn't make the rules and shouldn't be criticized for playing by them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.