View Full Version : National Sales Tax Gains Momentum
What are your thoughts on a National Sales Tax?
Personally, it sounds great for me as I am not a big consumer. :)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29637 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29637)
Winetalk.com
11-13-2002, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by wig@Nov 13 2002, 08:39 AM
What are your thoughts on a National Sales Tax?
Personally, it sounds great for me as I am not a big consumer. :)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29637 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29637)
d i t t o!
If there were a national sales tax then we'd all have to collect and remit it on our site sales, since shipping a product to a different state than you have a business presence in would no longer be somewhat of an exemption.
On the positive side it would simplify things -- no more paying X% in one state, a different % in another, and if the distribution was equitably done, could make everyone live with it, if not be happy with it.
Originally posted by *KK*@Nov 13 2002, 09:11 AM
If there were a national sales tax then we'd all have to collect and remit it on our site sales, since shipping a product to a different state than you have a business presence in would no longer be somewhat of an exemption.
KK, that may already be in the works.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Nov11.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40364-2002Nov11.html)
sextoyking
11-13-2002, 09:44 AM
Wig,
good article.
I think I can support a national sales tax, nothing wrong with a pay as you go income tax, beats the irs!!!
STK,
I wonder what would happen to all the CPA's? :yowsa:
I admit I do not know much about it, nor have I taken any time to contemplate the math of it, but it looks good at first glance. :D
sextoyking
11-13-2002, 10:24 AM
Wig,
yeh, I am sure the CPA Lobby isn't for this new legislation :)
we sure would cut the irs budget some I belive.
only thing I ever thought Steve Forbes was right about was a 10% or so flat tax.
PornoDoggy
11-13-2002, 10:45 AM
I could go for that ... exempt food and medicine, and lay it on. It's inherently graduated (da more you buy, da more you pay) ...
:butt: to the CPAs ...
Peaches
11-13-2002, 12:40 PM
What are your thoughts on a National Sales Tax?
I wonder how something like real estate would be handled?
Personally, it sounds great for me as I am not a big consumer.
Alcohol wouldn't be considered food - you'd pay your fair share of taxes :lol:
Mike AI
11-13-2002, 02:04 PM
National Sales tax is a good idea.... it also makes sure mone is collected from the underground economy. People who get paid in cash, and use cash and do not pay income taxs.
I like idea of flat tax as well..... anything has to be better then the system we have in place now!
Sure, they can increase the taxes on owning an SUV by 1000% and property taxes on any house worth more than $250,000 by 10,000% and I'm all for it.
How the hell would you enforce a tax like that? You'd go from putting tax evaders in jail to putting store owners in jail for not charging or collecting the proper amount of taxes for what they're selling.
Our current tax system leaves a lot to be desired, but are there any countries in the world who are doing this successfully? TWENTY THREE percent sales tax?
Meanwhile, now that Republicans are back in control of both houses of Congress, the administration will seek to make a set of tax cuts set to expire in 2010 permanent, while working on another tax-cut package to include reducing the taxation on share dividends
Ahh more cuts for the rich. Pretty soon they'll want to secede they have it so good. With they money they're saving they could buy out our national debt and take over America!
C.
--edit:
Before I get jumped on for this, I have some short-term tax reform that I think is a definite winner, and won't be subject to any debate in Congress.
1) Increase funding to the IRS according to their current stated needs.
2) Collect the 4 billion a year the IRS estimates they cannot collect due to understaffing and underfunding.
3) Repeal new bankruptcy reform act so taxes get paid before credit debt (okay that's wishful thinking.)
If we had an extra 4 billion each year in tax revenue, and an IRS that could properly and fairly work the cases it has, I think things would improve significantly. The expenditure would be maybe a couple million tops to get the IRS to a healthy level, and the return would be 1000%. It's a no-branier!
Last edited by Cal at Nov 13 2002, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 13 2002, 12:48 PM
Alcohol wouldn't be considered food - you'd pay your fair share of taxes :lol:
Peaches, no, no ,no.... that is medicine. :D :D
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 13 2002, 02:18 PM
Sure, they can increase the taxes on owning an SUV by 1000% and property taxes on any house worth more than $250,000 by 10,000% and I'm all for it.
How the hell would you enforce a tax like that? You'd go from putting tax evaders in jail to putting store owners in jail for not charging or collecting the proper amount of taxes for what they're selling.
Our current tax system leaves a lot to be desired, but are there any countries in the world who are doing this successfully? TWENTY THREE percent sales tax?
Meanwhile, now that Republicans are back in control of both houses of Congress, the administration will seek to make a set of tax cuts set to expire in 2010 permanent, while working on another tax-cut package to include reducing the taxation on share dividends
Ahh more cuts for the rich. Pretty soon they'll want to secede they have it so good. With they money they're saving they could buy out our national debt and take over America!
C.
--edit:
Before I get jumped on for this, I have some short-term tax reform that I think is a definite winner, and won't be subject to any debate in Congress.
1) Increase funding to the IRS according to their current stated needs.
2) Collect the 4 billion a year the IRS estimates they cannot collect due to understaffing and underfunding.
3) Repeal new bankruptcy reform act so taxes get paid before credit debt (okay that's wishful thinking.)
If we had an extra 4 billion each year in tax revenue, and an IRS that could properly and fairly work the cases it has, I think things would improve significantly. The expenditure would be maybe a couple million tops to get the IRS to a healthy level, and the return would be 1000%. It's a no-branier!
Basically, you are not rich, right??
Add another victim to the list. :yowsa:
Last edited by wig at Nov 13 2002, 04:46 PM
ulfie
11-13-2002, 04:44 PM
Cal, how in the world is a sales tax a tax cut for the rich? How much does someone making $20k a year versus someone that makes a million dollars consume? Most likely a national sales tax would be a tax INCREASE on the rich due to the fact that deductions would disappear and they consume a lot more.
As for turning merchants into tax collectors I don't care for that either but just about every state has a sales tax and it's a pretty rare occurence for a merchant to get hauled off to jail for not remitting their taxes. I know in PA doing the quarterly returns for merchantile taxes is a pain in the ass. Mom and pop businesses really don't need another thing they have to keep track of. A flat tax would suit me just fine as our current system is insane. I have a real horror story about the irs that after 6 years still isn't completely settled. They are as screwed up as a beauracracy can possibly get.
Last edited by ulfie at Nov 13 2002, 04:53 PM
Ulfie,
That is a very lucid and logical explanation that will fall on deaf ears. B)
Dianna Vesta
11-13-2002, 05:10 PM
That's really interesting. I heard about this but did'nt know they'd actual consider it.
It makes sense because if you have a lot of income you'll spent a lot of high ticket items. It would save tons of money for the goverment.
Heavy shoppers will feel it but hell that just gives retailers another reason to market sales.
Thanks Wig!
Originally posted by ulfie@Nov 13 2002, 01:52 PM
Cal, how in the world is a sales tax a tax cut for the rich? How much does someone making $20k a year versus someone that makes a million dollars consume? Most likely a national sales tax would be a tax INCREASE on the rich due to the fact that deductions would disappear and they consume a lot more.
As for turning merchants into tax collectors I don't care for that either but just about every state has a sales tax and it's a pretty rare occurence for a merchant to get hauled off to jail for not remitting their taxes. I know in PA doing the quarterly returns for merchantile taxes is a pain in the ass. Mom and pop businesses really don't need another thing they have to keep track of. A flat tax would suit me just fine as our current system is insane. I have a real horror story about the irs that after 6 years still isn't completely settled. They are as screwed up as a beauracracy can possibly get.
No I pay quite a bit of taxes, but anyone who runs a sub chapter S corp can tell you that with a decent accountant you pay much less tax than the average individual just for being a businessperson.
Here's how sales tax benefits the rich:
1) Rich people can import things, and find ways around it (just like they find ways around income tax) plus many times they OWN the businesses selling these things, so by claiming things stolen, by not reporting stock, etc. they can get many items at a discount.
2) Rich people do not HAVE to consume as much. Typically they do not have as many children as poor and minorities. A rich person can live in a 1 bedroom house or a mansion, they have the CHOICE. Or they could simply leave the US, and not pay any US sales tax at all.
The true victim of a tax system like this would be the single-income family. A single mom working at a job that barely keeps her at the poverty line does not pay anywhere near 30% tax when you consider all the refunds and assistance she gets. Yet she has 3 children, so she consumes more than a rich family with a modest house and no children (and two incomes.) Unless you propose making generic brands of everything tax free so all the poor will have something to eat :huh:
That article clearly states who is in favor of this tax reform and who isn't. Note that all of those in favor are conservative/reactionary groups? Their constituency is pretty obviously the wealthy.
I support tax reform that would give more money to the STATES such as increased property taxes (which truly DO cost the rich money, both homeowners and landowners) in exchange for decreases in other places, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking a flat tax or a national sales tax are solutions that benefit the common working man in America.
If you are in favor it giving to the rich and taking from the poor just say so, I don't agree but it's better than covering up your arguments by saying they're for the good of the 'people.'
C.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 13 2002, 05:21 PM
The true victim of a tax system like this would be the single-income family. A single mom working at a job that barely keeps her at the poverty line does not pay anywhere near 30% tax when you consider all the refunds and assistance she gets. Yet she has 3 children, so she consumes more than a rich family with a modest house and no children
If you are in favor it giving to the rich and taking from the poor just say so, I don't agree but it's better than covering up your arguments by saying they're for the good of the 'people.'
C.
Cal, I'm sure that there are many ppl who would take issue with your logic.
I would just like to ask you about each of these statements you made.
1) Is it the single moms responsibility or Gov't's to take care of her and her 3 kids?
2) What is the rich taking from the poor.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need? Sounds like that exactly what your philosophy is.
Your intentions may be noble, but the result of your ideas would be total failure. You would create a place worst off than the one you started with.
BTW, there is nothing being given to the rich, they are just keeping more of what was already theirs to begin with.
Yeah I know, believe me when it comes to my money I hate giving it to anyone! But...I do. It's my choice, and I'm not trying to tell everyone how to live.
But there are people who need help, it's that simple. If the minimum wage in some states wasn't $5.25 we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, if everyone could work a decent job and pay their rent and their bills. It's the responsibility of the father of her children to pay for them (I've been told by women that something like 40% of claimants actually get child support, wtf?!) but that's another matter completely. Single-income families take it on the chin now, and they would under a sales tax.
The rich take from the poor every day. Just ask Nike if they pay their workers in Malaysia a livable wage <_<
It's your money, sure. You earned it by doing whatever it is you do. But part of the PRIVILEGE (so the IRS tells us) of being US citizens is that you have to pay the US gov't some money for all your opportunities. Right now if you move overseas and don't set foot in the US for the entire tax year you have to pay income tax up to $80,000 in personal earnings! That's more what I mean, if you were born in Zaire there's a 1 in 3 chance you'd have HIV. You're American, so the success does come with a price.
Feel free to flame the shit out of me :)
I never said I was trying to change anything this minute, like I said give the IRS a few million so they can collect the 4 billion in unpaid taxes. Reform the INS and help get all these illegal aliens off our tax rolls. Reform the welfare system and give drug addicts the help they need and put people to work. Reform the DSS and get single mothers their fucking child support money. Reform drug laws and stop costing taxpayers money by sending people to jail for having an ounce in their dashboard. Give money to schools so they can have gym class 3 days a week instead of grilling from 1st grade for standardized tests so they can graduate high school. Feed them healthy food and not Taco Bell (schools are so strapped they take corporate sponsorships just to pay their cafeteria bills) so we reduce our nation's overweight and unhealthy citizens.
There are a million ways to make the best of our system. Your reforms would be an about-face in the way we do business, mine just mean rerouting some money (or properly managing the money we DO have) to make sure we make the best of it.
:awinky:
C.
"Only Presidents and those with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial we"
"What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector?
The taxidermist takes only your skin. "
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 13 2002, 05:44 PM
Yeah I know, believe me when it comes to my money I hate giving it to anyone! But...I do. It's my choice
It's your choice to pay income tax?
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 13 2002, 05:44 PM
The rich take from the poor every day. Just ask Nike if they pay their workers in Malaysia a livable wage
Big difference between coercion and a choice. These people hve a choice to work there or not to.
Originally posted by wig+Nov 13 2002, 03:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Nov 13 2002, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 13 2002, 05:44 PM
The rich take from the poor every day. Just ask Nike if they pay their workers in Malaysia a livable wage
Big difference between coercion and a choice. These people hve a choice to work there or not to.[/b][/quote]
If you think that people working minimum wage jobs (2 or 3 of them) CHOOSE to work there I'm afraid we had better call out the paramedics. Sure it's a class war, and people who earn enough to live don't need help. It's the people who aren't qualified, or have other obligations (children) and can't make ends meet. That's all I'm saying. You don't think it's a problem that one in six children doesn't get a proper meal?
I don't choose whether to pay income tax, but I donate to charities and groups of that nature. That's what I was referring to, I don't have to help others, but I do.
Look even the Catholics agree! :cryin:
http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/press...el/prstory2.htm (http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/pressrel/prstory2.htm)
C.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 13 2002, 05:44 PM
It's your money, sure. You earned it by doing whatever it is you do. But part of the PRIVILEGE (so the IRS tells us) of being US citizens is that you have to pay the US gov't some money for all your opportunities.
Yes, it is my money. I did earn it. I want to keep as much of it as I can and do not want them taking more from me and giving it to someone else just because I worked hard and someone else did not.
The point where you fail to realize the flaw in your philosophy is where you cannot distinguish from the people who will take advantage of this and the people who really need it, and what the end result of this transfer of wealth will mean.
The people who really need it should get it from charity. Not from the Gov't as they point a gun in my face.
Originally posted by wig@Nov 13 2002, 06:38 PM
You don't think it's a problem that one in six children doesn't get a proper meal?
No, i don't think that it is the Gov't responsibility to make it my responsibility my taking my money at gun point and redistibuting it where they think it should go.
I give to Charities to and i could give a lot more if i could keep more of my money.
i could also save more, invest more, etc.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 13 2002, 06:36 PM
If you think that people working minimum wage jobs (2 or 3 of them) CHOOSE to work there I'm afraid we had better call out the paramedics.
I'm sorry Cal, who is MAKING them work there? Nike?
It may not be what they would want to choose, but they choose it.
In fantasty land, which is where you are, they would choose to be a doctor, professor, librarian, president or business owner. Unfortunately, that is not reality.
Originally posted by wig+Nov 13 2002, 03:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Nov 13 2002, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 13 2002, 05:44 PM
It's your money, sure. You earned it by doing whatever it is you do. But part of the PRIVILEGE (so the IRS tells us) of being US citizens is that you have to pay the US gov't some money for all your opportunities.
Yes, it is my money. I did earn it. I want to keep as much of it as I can and do not want them taking more from me and giving it to someone else just because I worked hard and someone else did not.
The point where you fail to realize the flaw in your philosophy is where you cannot distinguish from the people who will take advantage of this and the people who really need it, and what the end result of this transfer of wealth will mean.
The people who really need it should get it from charity. Not from the Gov't as they point a gun in my face.[/b][/quote]
Oh I don't lose this point at all. I'm just talking about real-world reform here. If we make those changes I mentioned to our existing system things would at least IMPROVE even if people weren't supremely happy. If those systems were in place I would welcome more Bush tax cuts, knowing that we were putting the money in the right places for schools, keeping people out of jails, and knowing exactly who was in our country.
The government has enough money to do what it has to do at the moment, it just doesn't use it properly. I think we can all agree on that one. If the poor were the beneficiaries of this idiocy people like me would have a very different view of things, but unfortunately it's the opposite.
Is a mule skinner anything like the rabbit lady in Roger & Me?
C.
Peaches
11-13-2002, 06:45 PM
It's the people who aren't qualified, or have other obligations (children) and can't make ends meet. That's all I'm saying. You don't think it's a problem that one in six children doesn't get a proper meal?
I personally think it IS a problem. So it makes me mad and upset when someone who isn't qualified to make more than minimum wage CHOOSES to give birth to a child (or in most cases, children) that they KNOW they can't feed properly :angry:
Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 13 2002, 03:53 PM
It's the people who aren't qualified, or have other obligations (children) and can't make ends meet. That's all I'm saying. You don't think it's a problem that one in six children doesn't get a proper meal?
I personally think it IS a problem. So it makes me mad and upset when someone who isn't qualified to make more than minimum wage CHOOSES to give birth to a child (or in most cases, children) that they KNOW they can't feed properly :angry:
Yeah I'm more like a Rambo humanist. If your actions are not benefitting the greater good (i.e. having 5 kids) then I have 0 sympathy. People who have more kids to get more welfare should get LESS welfare. Unfortunately our system has no way to know this. If we had universal healthcare we could always use the China-style threat and give single mothers or families less and less benefits the more children they had. I'm a huge advocate of parental planning, which sucks in an age where it's all but nonexistant.
Now people will probably call me different names, but hey I just call em like I see em!
C.
Dianna Vesta
11-13-2002, 06:57 PM
That's all about education and socialization.
The Seminole Tribe pays dividends to each tribal member of 2K per month from the tie they are born until they die. All from Casino and Bingo profits. Many of the indian women are having so many babies just to get more money. The kids don't start getting the money until they are 18. You also have white girls getting pregant by indian men. They need a better system.
I didn't even think about how that new tax thing would affect large families. I think that taxes are adjusted into tangible items and spread around not causing massive price hikes. A family of 6 buys food and I don't think you'll barely notice the differences except on large purchases such as cars, real estate and luxury items.
I think that all women should be forced to wait to bare children until they are at least 25. No expection period. If they did that it would end a lot of bullshit.
The federal taxation system has always sucked. I pay more then most. I have no dependents and single. I don't think I should have to pay more because I earn more. That's just not fair. I think taxing items and paying as you go is the most fair solution I've seen.
:bjump: :butt:
Cal, you are an idealist and very misguided IMHO. It was fun debating, but I am done tonight.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mule+skinner
Mules and horses are a hobby of mine.
I am sure you relate more to cartoon characters. :yowsa:
Aren't all idealists misguided because everyone wants to guide us in some other direction? :P
For some reason all the dictionaries I tried online are broken, but I found some data. But I've ridden mules in the grand canyon, my parents owned a horse back in MA. I love animals, though I'm more partial to exotics. Despite that below-the-belt cartoon comment maybe we'll do business in the near future! ;)
C.
Torone
11-14-2002, 08:06 AM
Sorry, but I gotta take umbrage at the Malaysia thing. What the people making the Nikes are being paid cannot be looked at in terms of this economy. There, those people are making good money. Here, no one would work for that wage. Fuckin' one-worlders! :moon:
IMHO, there is nothing more dangerous than idealists with a vision of utopia.
I have said it many times, but I will say it again..... The ideas are noble, but they do not work in the real world.
So when I propose we keep our current system and reform the IRS and the distribution of gov't funds, that has no practical application in the real world. But you propose solutions that are being used nowhere on the planet, and have not been proven to work outside of pure speculation, and I am the idealist?
C.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 02:22 PM
So when I propose we keep our current system and reform the IRS and the distribution of gov't funds, that has no practical application in the real world. But you propose solutions that are being used nowhere on the planet, and have not been proven to work outside of pure speculation, and I am the idealist?
C.
You propose to throw more money at the current system and your goal in doing so (based on your posts) is to save the poor people, the single moms, the environment, etc, etc.
You also propose that we should stay with the current income tax, where achievers pay the way for non-achievers. You believe that this will fix the problem, which is pure speculation as well.
Because you care so much about these issues, you are comfortable with the Gov't taking my money and/or rights as long as it is spent where you think it needs to be. You do not care about my individual rights because the ends justify the means in your book.
Cal, you cannot give people something for nothing and expect them to not expect it again in the future. If enough of this class of people are created, they will be in a position to vote to continue to sap the acheivers and at an increasing rate. Then, eventually one (and probably both) of two things will happen:
1) the acheivers will leave
2) the system will be bankrupt
It is in this vein that I believe your overall philosophy is impractical and therefore idealist. Look, you seem to have genuine concern for who you consider to be the "victims" of the world. I applaud that.
We should just agree to disagree on what the best way is to help these people.
btw, just like the IRS puts out studies on how they can collect more if they had more funds, there are also studies on how a National Sales tax or flat tax would increase revenues. There is a study supporting anything you like as you pointed out in another thread.
http://www.fairtax.org has some information on taxes
Okay, I agree to disagree. I just don't like all the name calling and finger pointing like I am trying to melt the planet into a ball of slag or something!
I'm the first to admit our gov't has grossly mismanaged our economy and misappropriated just about everything they could get their hands on. You're right my idea is mostly just a band-aid, but my aim is not to support underachievers.
I've mentioned it a couple other places; if you're not part of the human solution you're part of the problem. I think most socialists would string me up for saying we ought to adopt Chinese policy on having multiple offspring. I think if you can't support the kids, you should be penalized for having them. CREATING a burden on society should never be rewarded.
However the hazy area is people who are downtrodden. People with no children who are addicted to drugs or booze, how do we help them? Letting them lead lifes of crime is not the answer, so what kind of support can we give people who CAN contribute to help them get to that point? The welfare-to-work program has helped a lot of people get jobs that pay $8-10 an hour instead of $5.25, but it has also forced single mothers to work 12 hour days, commute 3 hours to jobs, and left them so exhausted they can't provide proper care for their kids. So 1 solution doesn't work for everyone.
What is the solution? Why are we so fucking lazy? Our gov't gives out less in the way of handouts than plenty of other countries, yet we have the highest percentage of freeloaders! If any of you Libertarians can tell me how we can get these people off the government tit and make them productive, I'm all ears! That goes for any of you, because as I said, I pay my taxes but I'd rather have more money to spend just like anyone else. But I'm opposed to proposals that leave potentially productive members of society behind. Do I think we should impose some form of sanctions on single impoverished mothers who keep having children out of wedlock and not seeking child support from their deadbeat fathers? Definitely! Do I think we should toss unemployed steel workers with alcohol addictions onto the street? No way.
I'm sick of seeing our jobs go overseas, sick of seeing fat cats polluting our environment while laying off thousands of workers, sick of seeing greed and theft in our own government. Lead me to the light wig! I'm all for any solution that makes people earn what they get, but I hope we can agree on the fact that for every hard worker in this country there are a couple people standing in line with their hands out.
What is the biggest employee theft in business? Time! I guess the same could be said for Oprano though. :awinky:
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 03:16 PM
What is the biggest employee theft in business? Time! I guess the same could be said for Oprano though. :awinky:
Ain't that the truth. :)
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 03:16 PM
I'm the first to admit our gov't has grossly mismanaged our economy and misappropriated just about everything they could get their hands on. You're right my idea is mostly just a band-aid, but my aim is not to support underachievers.
Okay, so let's start reducing the Federal Gov't's role in some of this stuff instaed of continuing to throw more money down the hole we both agree exists.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 03:16 PM
I've mentioned it a couple other places; if you're not part of the human solution you're part of the problem. I think most socialists would string me up for saying we ought to adopt Chinese policy on having multiple offspring. I think if you can't support the kids, you should be penalized for having them. CREATING a burden on society should never be rewarded.
You are part of the solution if you are a productive, law abiding individual.
I cannot agree with the Chinese policy thing because it is a violation of individual rights. The simple fact is that these people will always exist. They will only grow into uncontrollable numbers through welfare.
The "tit" is a tough thing to let go. :D
Originally posted by wig+Nov 14 2002, 03:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Nov 14 2002, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 14 2002, 03:16 PM
What is the biggest employee theft in business? Time! I guess the same could be said for Oprano though. :awinky:
Ain't that the truth. :)[/b][/quote]
Watch it you two - don't make me fire you! :awinky:
I do have to say I've been keeping up with this thread and am torn - It will be interesting to see how this all pans out... I think I'd be in favour of a national sales tax that wasn't like 50% - something lower - more like 10 or 15% - and an abolishment of ALL other forms of federal income taxation.
Well to be honest, I must retract one of my statements.
Freeport, Bahamas has no income tax at all. As far as I know they work entirely off other industries such as banking and gambling, and no doubt criminal activities. The head of their business development department told me stuff was somewhat more expensive to buy there (sales tax or just due to import regulations I don't know) but Miami was just a 30 minute plane ride away, and you could bring back up to thousands worth of US goods with no additional tarriffs.
Aside from the hurricanes it sounds perfect, wig and I have put a down payment on a mule ranch inland a bit from the port.
C.
Peaches
11-14-2002, 03:29 PM
The head of their business development department told me stuff was somewhat more expensive to buy there
I wonder HOW much more expensive things are - after all, if you're NOT paying 35% of you income in taxes, it wouldn't hurt so much to pay 15% more for things you buy :P
but Miami was just a 30 minute plane ride away, and you could bring back up to thousands worth of US goods with no additional tarriffs.
Now that rather pisses me off. I wonder how long they'll be able to sustain no income taxes if their people aren't supporting the economy. :angry:
I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of the money to run the country (or whatever Freeport is...is it a country?!?) comes from tourists and large fees from cruise ships docking there. I haven't been to Freeport in 20+ years - loved it then, bet it's changed :(
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 03:16 PM
However the hazy area is people who are downtrodden. People with no children who are addicted to drugs or booze, how do we help them? Letting them lead lifes of crime is not the answer, so what kind of support can we give people who CAN contribute to help them get to that point? The welfare-to-work program has helped a lot of people get jobs that pay $8-10 an hour instead of $5.25, but it has also forced single mothers to work 12 hour days, commute 3 hours to jobs, and left them so exhausted they can't provide proper care for their kids. So 1 solution doesn't work for everyone.
What is the solution? Why are we so fucking lazy? Our gov't gives out less in the way of handouts than plenty of other countries, yet we have the highest percentage of freeloaders! If any of you Libertarians can tell me how we can get these people off the government tit and make them productive, I'm all ears! That goes for any of you, because as I said, I pay my taxes but I'd rather have more money to spend just like anyone else. But I'm opposed to proposals that leave potentially productive members of society behind. Do I think we should impose some form of sanctions on single impoverished mothers who keep having children out of wedlock and not seeking child support from their deadbeat fathers? Definitely! Do I think we should toss unemployed steel workers with alcohol addictions onto the street? No way.
Hey, I don't propose to have the exact answer and I am certainly more concerned about how to position myself for events than I am about changing them.
However, if I had my way I would try this.
I would abolish the IRS and insitute a fair tax that could not be used by politicians to pander (on either side)
I would increase new investment with tax breaks for businesses, enact higher limits on retirement accounts and increase the amount of capital losses that can be deducted from income taxes.
I would legalize drugs and put all the money wasted there into education and treatment. I would also change up Education, but that is another topic.
I would release all the non-violent criminals (drug offenders) from jail to make room for the real criminals and I would keep them there.
I would enforce the laws.
I would institute a loser pays legal system.
I would make people be accountable for their actions.
I would eliminate welfare gradually, which would help with the above.
I would repeal all the gun laws, as they only affect the law abiding citizen.
And, where gov't control or action was needed, I would reserve this to the States where at least there would be some competition. In other words, pass a stupid law and watch business and productivity goes to another State.
Anyway, that just a start.
I also think one has to be willing to accept that there will still be people who are downtrodden and that no answer exists where there won't be.
And now I find myself VOTING FOR WIG! :awinky:
Originally posted by Edd@Nov 14 2002, 03:50 PM
And now I find myself VOTING FOR WIG! :awinky:
Does that mean I still have a job? :D :D
ulfie
11-14-2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Edd@Nov 14 2002, 03:50 PM
And now I find myself VOTING FOR WIG! :awinky:
I doubt he would want the pay cut and hassles. :D
Doesn't look too bad (I mean it's vague but so is anything political) other than the guns, but as Howard Dean puts it, we need to leave that to the states. What works for NY won't work in NH.
I do think that if done properly, we CAN provide universal health care in this country. Even it it's not on the income tax system, even if it's sales tax or the money we save by holding insurance companies more accountable, or whatever!
On many issues I find myself agreeing that we need to leave it up to the states. That's what they originally wanted, which is why they forced the Bill of Rights rather than just signing the constitution. National issues for me are health care, the environment, law enforcement and homeland security, defense, the treasury, and any cross-jurisdictional type stuff. Maybe drug enforcement. It'll be hard to seperate the states from the US gov't especially now, after all the same lawmakers who would have to repeal these laws are the ones who love having all this power.
But if we put things that really DO vary by state in the hands of the states, such as gun control, I think the people will be better represented. Does this mean you'll vote for Howard Dean wig? Since he wants to decentralize a lot of current policy and give it to the states? :awinky:
He's a Bill Bradley candidate, but the world needs dreamers I guess! I like Dean better than Nader at this point. I agree with JR that some rabid environmentalists can do more harm than good on a national stage; there is a difference between drawing educated opinions and putting blinders on.
C.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 04:04 PM
It'll be hard to seperate the states from the US gov't especially now, after all the same lawmakers who would have to repeal these laws are the ones who love having all this power.
Cal, in the end, I think that this is the most telling point. No matter what ideas are proposed, if they involve what you said above it is a moot point because they will not be utilized -- even if they may hold the best solution.
It is hard not to comment on or debate the issues we discuss, but I personally direct most of my resources towards anticipating the most probable outcome and taking advantage of whatever comes.
I certainly do not expect to change anyones mind. It's just fun to debate it sometimes. And, of course, I couldn't disagree with you more about universal health care. I only wish Oregon would have passed their attempt so we could see what would have happened.
Like I have said many times, I am all for trying anyones ideas at the State level because the market forces will prevail. I can live with that.
:D
Peaches
11-14-2002, 04:22 PM
And, of course, I couldn't disagree with you more about universal health care. I only wish Oregon would have passed their attempt so we could see what would have happened.
I may have misunderstood, but wasn't Oregon's proposal what would have amounted to a very large group plan? From what I heard, it wasn't free, and it wasn't funded by the government, but it would have allowed for more even insurance costs, i.e. just because you have $$, doesn't mean you should have to pay more for insurance. My rates just went up (AGAIN!) and I'm now paying over $400 a month for myself and the kid. I would LOVE to be able to get a "group" rate and I THOUGHT that's what the Oregon proposal was.
In addition I thought it would allow people that are currently unable to get insurance to be able to obtain it (for example, a friend of mine with pre-existing conditions is getting ready to have his COBRA expire - he CANNOT find another carrier to cover him..........).
Am I missing the boat on this?
ulfie
11-14-2002, 04:39 PM
Yep, the boat sailed, you missed it. ;)
The Oregon bill was another tax the rich scheme. I wish it would have passed. Every critically ill patient in the US would have been flocking there while the people paying the bills would have been leaving.
http://www.healthcareforalloregon.org/summary.htm
Peaches
11-14-2002, 04:42 PM
Ah, thanks for the link - see what happens when you just catch bits and pieces of information? :o
OK, well, then would MY plan work? :)
T-Rav
11-14-2002, 05:05 PM
Wig for President!
I am officially opting out of this topic, and allowing Wig to speak on my behalf. I have yet to disagree with any statements he has made on this thread.
Cal, I respect your opinion. You sound just like my brother, my best friend, and my dad. They are all idealists, and unrealistic in my opinion. A perfect world does not exist, we are forced to work with the one we have. Some people just aren't going to be as well off as others. We can't save everyone.
What's so idealistic about penalizing poor mothers with tons of kids? China does it, it must work! :zoinks:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/issues.htm#healthcare
Let the flames begin!
:rolleyes:
C.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 14 2002, 05:43 PM
What's so idealistic about penalizing poor mothers with tons of kids? China does it, it must work! :zoinks:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/issues.htm#healthcare
Let the flames begin!
:rolleyes:
C.
Cal, I looked at this site and in the very first paragraph Dean states...
"President Bush and the GOP have essentially taken money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, money that is owed to the American people, and used it to finance tax cuts that hurt most Americans."
This guy is either naive or he is purposely deceiving people.
There is no money in the social security trust fund. There is only a computer entry (called book entry) which consists of treasury securities (mostly STRIPS -- zero coupon treasury bonds). It is a collection of Federal Gov't IOU's to themselves, which they count as money. It is nothing more than a massive ponzi scheme.
I prefer a candidate that understands this and is not afraid to air it. Otherwise, it is simply demagoguery.
You should have read the rest, that partisan stuff I knew would turn people off. But he's a politician, so what do you expect I guess.
It was always amazing how the media and economists professed that there WAS no social security trust, yet no politicians that I saw ever brought that to light. Some even campaigned on using it to bring down the debt! Insanity.
C.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.