I find much actually agreeable here, except the whole unlimited funds free-for-all solution you propose (super PACs pretty much do this).Super PACs do this because of the campaign finance laws that exist, and were written by the incumbents. Which is why our last several presidential elections have featured multi-millionaires. They're the only ones who can afford to get in the game.
Wanna know a dirty little secret? Big business loves big government. Why did Wal-Mart support Obamacare? Because it would create a huge burden for any other retailer to enter anything other than a mom-and-pop operation. And WalMart crushes them on price.
An amendment to further limit the freedom of the individual would only empower . . . those who can game the system already. The responsibility for a government that doesn't overpower the individual lies with the individual, and if you continue to vote for the person with a D or an R after their name for no other reason than "we can't let the other guys win" you're part of the problem.
A senator in my state is up for election, and is finally facing a primary challenger. This guy's been our senator for 36 years. He doesn't even hold residency in our state anymore. I don't care what the letter is after his name, it's time for him to go. He's part of the problem.
I don't know if this is intended to be a rebuttal or not... I said just as much earlier, but less specifically.
I don't believe any proposal I make would limit any individuals. In fact, if you believe that only multimillionaires can run for POTUS, why not reform the law of the land in the form of an amendment that renders money irrelevant to the election process?
The only campaign finance reform that would ever matter:
A FLAT TAX RATE OF 20% on everything and everyone. No loopholes, no differentiation between income and capital gains or farm revenue and interest earned.
A FLAT RATE. No offshore dodges.
Followed with an amendment to the Constitution that dictates the government may not spend more than 18% of GDP in a fiscal year. (Balanced Budget Ammendment)
Once this is done election expenses are born equally by mandating equal FREE ads for all candidates of all parties to be carried via any FCC regulated medium.
Remove the need, for corporate money from politics. Remove the ability of politicians to manipulate the tax code for fundraising and/or vote pandering.
No one will ever back it, we'd all pay more. But it would be fair and maybe even honest. In my experience fair and honest aren't really very popular.
And a question;
If a corporation is a person, can the Corp. Plead the 5th?
It is also a deeply regressive tax plan, unless coupled with a real time tax credits system.
20% of tax for the poorest people in a society is crippling, while 20% tax for the richest 1% in a society, has little practical impact on their lives or happiness.
And please don't bring out 'those rich people worked for what they got, and should be rewarded' first of all, the evidence is clear, the biggest single factor in how wealthy you will be as an american, is how wealthy your parent are, you have very low levels of social mobility, the very richest in society could pay many times what they currently do, and still rewarded with a level of wealth most people cannot dream to achieve, thank you very much.
If anyone wants to ban the unions from making campaign contributions, I might support them.
Nice thread. Though, I didn't know we needed reasons why obvious things are obvious. I guess when Law supercedes reason...
+1
I don't get why companies should be considered people. At all. They are collections of people. Any rights those component people have are still fully usable. Why their specific mode of cooperation should be more protected is... unclear.
But, I say: If they want to be people, let them. Of particular interest, then, would be the parts about going to jail. I imagine if the entirety of a single corporation was thrown in jail for a year or so, the level of morals and ethics shown by the corporation leadership would be of prime relevance when people consider whether they want to start or keep working for a particular corporation.
|
The only campaign finance reform that would ever matter:
A FLAT TAX RATE OF 20% on everything and everyone. No loopholes, no differentiation between income and capital gains or farm revenue and interest earned.
A FLAT RATE. No offshore dodges.
Followed with an amendment to the Constitution that dictates the government may not spend more than 18% of GDP in a fiscal year. (Balanced Budget Ammendment)
Once this is done election expenses are born equally by mandating equal FREE ads for all candidates of all parties to be carried via any FCC regulated medium.
Remove the need, for corporate money from politics. Remove the ability of politicians to manipulate the tax code for fundraising and/or vote pandering.
No one will ever back it, we'd all pay more. But it would be fair and maybe even honest. In my experience fair and honest aren't really very popular.
And a question;
If a corporation is a person, can the Corp. Plead the 5th?It is also a deeply regressive tax plan, unless coupled with a real time tax credits system.
20% of tax for the poorest people in a society is crippling, while 20% tax for the richest 1% in a society, has little practical impact on their lives or happiness.
How is 20% tax for the poorest in society any different than what they are already being taxed? And even if it is more, by having a balanced approach to government GDP and taxations there should be a better system in place to assist those who need it.
Also Doug, I would read up on flouride and chlorine more....I don't feel like detracting from this conversation so I say no more. and I don't have time to find and post links today.
We should have an exponential tax rate with no loopholes or exceptions that is capped at 50%.
That way everyone pays proportionally the same tax without discouraging people from trying to get super rich.
The rich shouldn't pay 20%, that is a drop in the bucket for them. Instead, we should make them keeping paying 15% because that is morrrr ... oh. oh.
|
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.
I want to be a rocket surgeon when I grow up!
It is also a deeply regressive tax plan, unless coupled with a real time tax credits system.
Ummm...no. It's not a regressive tax plan; it's simply not a progressive plan. It is more regressive than the system we have now, but as it's a flat rate, it's neither progressive or regressive in and of itself.
</pedantry>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care what kind of tax it is, I don't see why I have to pay anything to a government that's going to bomb children in foreign countries and give bailouts to financiers and auto manufacturers.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.
I want to be a rocket surgeon when I grow up!
It is also a deeply regressive tax plan, unless coupled with a real time tax credits system.
Ummm...no. It's not a regressive tax plan; it's simply not a progressive plan. It is more regressive than the system we have now, but as it's a flat rate, it's neither progressive or regressive in and of itself.
</pedantry>
The problem with a flat tax rate is that the real income of the poor is taxed higher that way. Let me illustrate.
Proportionally, the other common taxes beyond income (payroll, sales, etc.) account for more of the income of the poor, as much more of their living expenses do the same. All the same to people not in this situation (hey more money means more freedom, right?), but it means that the poorest of people are worse off for being poor than simply by being poor, which is bad enough.
When Fox News says the bottom 45% don't pay income tax, it's because they couldn't afford it in the first place. They already pay other taxes, and proportionally, the total tax rate is much more even than it's portrayed.
It's the exceptions to the rule that bother poor people the most, the ones that get away with paying less than their share: most investors (taxed at 15%), many very wealthy through loopholes, and some of the world's largest corporations through more loopholes.
|
|
It is also a deeply regressive tax plan, unless coupled with a real time tax credits system.
Ummm...no. It's not a regressive tax plan; it's simply not a progressive plan. It is more regressive than the system we have now, but as it's a flat rate, it's neither progressive or regressive in and of itself.
</pedantry>
The problem with a flat tax rate is that the real income of the poor is taxed higher that way. Let me illustrate.
Proportionally, the other common taxes beyond income (payroll, sales, etc.) account for more of the income of the poor, as much more of their living expenses do the same. All the same to people not in this situation (hey more money means more freedom, right?), but it means that the poorest of people are worse off for being poor than simply by being poor, which is bad enough.
Not saying anything about the philosophy that the same tax rate is more crippling for those with less money. But calling a flat tax "deeply regressive" is completely inaccurate, and I couldn't let it stand. An example of a deeply regressive tax would be to tax 50% income for those earning less than $20,000 / yr, 20% for those earning between $20K - $200k, and no taxes on those earning more than $200k/yr.
A flat tax rate, while you may feel it's unfair for the poorer among us, is not regressive, let alone deeply regressive. It's FLAT.
Our current rates are progressive. The more you earn, the higher percentage you pay.
You could accurately state, since our current tax system is progressive, that a flat tax is more regressive than our current system. it is NOT, however, regressive in and of itself.
That's all I'm saying.
sorry, I can't figure out what's wrong with my quotes. :/
In fairness to myself, when I posted, it was 05:58 AM, and I had just been woken up by my cat. Mistakes where made.
But I am a good sport so here I shall say it to myself.
However, the point remains, such a system of tax is deeply unfair, it disproportionately effect the poor and its generally a "Bad Thing."
Somewhere the quotes have been mixed up a bit, but thejeff has it exactly right.
If all we had was an income tax, then the story changes significantly, but we have to take the other taxes into account when figuring out what people really pay. Taking all taxes, most people pay a similar total tax rate, with a progressive trend ever so slight (with exceptions, of course).
Making the claim that "flat tax is flat" is unfortunately too simple compared to what we really have. There's nothing exactly wrong with making such a claim, but it needs to be understood that enforcing such a thing makes the total tax rate deeply regressive. That's the reality.
|
|
The original quote was an overhauled tax system that charged a flat 20% on everything. ::shrug:: The original conversation was not about anything but a completely new tax system, completely flat. Which is not going to happen, but that was the original conversation.
I'm not talking about the philosophical side, or replacing only the income tax portion of our system. I'm talking about the original context of the quotes, and correcting a simple factual error.
As zombieneighbors has acknowledged the error as such, that is all I have to say on the subject.
|
I don't care what kind of tax it is, I don't see why I have to pay anything to a government that's going to bomb children in foreign countries and give bailouts to financiers and auto manufacturers.
Here ya go Comrade
Q:And Children/A:And Children.
Anyway - We should have a flat tax for corps (no dodging) and as far as citizens are concerned a scaling but guaranteed tax (no tax credits).
So poor people will have to pay something, maybe not a fixed 20% or 15% but they have to put something into the system.
Republicans won’t do it because the corps would get pissed and many hard-liners would frame this as a tax increase (since it would force lower income earners to pay something). Democrats would also say it’s a tax increase on the poor.
Democrats would never do it because they want an entrenched majority vote by giving handouts in exchange for votes from the poor. Raising taxes on the poor (and it would be a tax increase) would just mean that the poor are now having to pay for services rendered and would reduce the amount of guaranteed votes which go to the Commu…er, Democrats.
TL;DR version - It will never happen
|
|
Would you bring back traditional welfare so that the poor could pay taxes and have "some skin in the game"? Or would you just take away the tax credits and not really care what happens to those depending on them to feed their families? Maybe charities will take up the slack.
The gov't - at least the Federal Gov't, isn't empowered to "feed their families" directly or by proxy. I would rather have them pay a share of taxes and not give it back to them via another handout. If that is the only choice then I would rather they just keep more of their own money instead of a paying into a system only to have it repackaged and returned back to them. One system (pay less/tax credits) is better than the other (welfare), but the reality is that both concepts have failed to create an engaged populace and voter. What it does create is a detached class of people. Bottom line: they should pay something.
-
With a few exceptional cases everyone does need to have some "skin in the game" or we end up with what we have now - an indifferent populace. Invested people will care more about the public schools they are paying for, public transportation, general projects, corperate tax breaks, and public union pay, etc, without the attitude of "well, I'm not paying for it". Because right now that is exactly what we have, people who don't care. If you make them pay, they will care and by all rights the system should function and give them something back in services. What we have right now is a 100% disfunctional and unsustainable model.
With a few exceptional cases everyone does need to have some "skin in the game" or we end up with what we have now - an indifferent populace. Invested people will care more about the public schools they are paying for, public transportation, general projects, corperate tax breaks, and public union pay, etc, without the attitude of "well, I'm not paying for it". Because right now that is exactly what we have, people who don't care. If you make them pay, they will care and by all rights the system should function and give them something back in services. What we have right now is a 100% disfunctional and unsustainable model.
How much "skin in the game" should a family of 4 with a total income of $22,000 provide?
|
|
First of all, they are paying for it. Unless they are utterly destitute. Most states run largely on sales taxes. Everyone who buys things pays those. Local towns and districts usually run mostly on property taxes. If you rent (and don't own car, in some cases) you don't pay those directly, but you can be damn sure your landlord passes them on to you. He's usually not shy about mentioning it when your rent goes up too.
Everyone does pay into the system. They just don't pay federal income taxes.
Around half of the money the Federal gov't recieves is from income taxes, and around half of population (45%) doesn't pay it. All I'm saying is they should pay more.
Second the purpose of taxes and/or welfare is not "to create an engaged populace and voter." It's to fund the government and to create a safety net.
No one was arguing that. I was stating a cause-effect paradigm. Those that don't pay are not as invested as those who do. Instead of working on the definition of taxes and welfare let's stick to the how's and why's of the current dysfuntional system.
Finally, it's good to know your answer is "just let them starve". That simplifies things.
Let me know when your heart stops bleeding and then we can carry on the conversation. The appeal to "oh no, what about the children?" doesn't wash with me when I am thinking "what about the whole damn country".
How much "skin in the game" should a family of 4 with a total income of $22,000 provide?A scaling but fixed percentage of their income.
If they are going to live in this society, reap the benefits of this society and if they can be employed and are employed they should pay something.
So you think that a family of 4 with an income of $22,000, should receive zero benefits and pay into the system?
|
|
Frankly so do I. The way to do that is to pay them more. Get them job. Good jobs that pay enough that they'll owe taxes. Shift the income downward and you'll see the tax burden shift downward as well.
Just trying to take more blood from a stone doesn't work.
I don't buy it. Granted I want everyone to make more money, the part I don't buy is the "blood from a stone" bit. Again, what I am advocating is a progressive but guaranteed tax payment system. I do understand that 10% to the ultra wealthy and 10% to the working poor are two huge gaps and that those numbers would not work. But people need to be invested. They need to see some ownership in the system. That way they could have a sense of pride and more importantly a sense of stewardship when it comes to interacting with public services.
This also goes to understanding human behavior, something that both parties exploit the worst aspects of. The Demes in particular like to play the entitlement game. When you get something for free a few times you may value it, but not as much as if you paid for it. When you get something for free over long periods of time then you start to expect it. By paying into the system they have full authority to direct that system.
As another example - Do you think parents would be more engaged in the affairs of public schools if they see a direct correlation with their tax dollars and their children’s education? I think they would. As it stands right now public education is basically a poorly run, free k-12 babysitting service. Make them pay, and then they will get involved in the selection and quality of the product.
Any actual evidence that being taxed causes engagement? Correlation is not causation and there are many reasons the poor could be less engaged.
I agree with on this to a degree. I think the poor have plenty of distractions to prevent them from getting engaged in democracy. What better incentive than to make them pay? Many will still not get involved, but I think that many will also be more critical every time a politician wants to: glad hand a company with a contract, have an adventure in spending or social engineering, or starting an unnecessary war.
If you want to people to not be sheep they need to pay. When you have to pay for something you generally start to pay attention to the details, especially if you think you're getting ripped off.
You're thinking about sticking it to the poor who are worse off than they've been in decades. The rich have recovered from the recession. The poor are still in the midst of it. But hey why not kick them while they're down.
I'm not saying that this has to happen tomorrow, but eventually it does have to happen. Otherwise we go 100% in the opposite direction - where only those with money, power or slickest political propaganda are calling all the shots all the time. I know most cynics think that's already the case but I don't. I still hold out hope that the American poor and middle class will wake up.
-
So you think that a family of 4 with an income of $22,000, should receive zero benefits and pay into the system?
Where did I say they should receive zero benefits?
How much "skin in the game" should a family of 4 with a total income of $22,000 provide?A scaling but fixed percentage of their income.
If they are going to live in this society, reap the benefits of this society and if they can be employed and are employed they should pay something.
It's really more a matter if they can pay at all, not whether they should (and I think most believe they should).
I once had a bill go to collections. I had people pestering me over the phone for payment every month. Finally, they had enough of me, despite my regular payments, and demanded I pay the whole sum.
Naturally, I didn't have the money, and I told them that I make payments every month with them because it was all I could afford. The guy on the line said, "Come on, stop messing around, what really takes up so much of your money you can't pay a $6,000 bill on time?"
My reply, "Well, since you asked, my car broke down a few months ago, so I had to buy a new one, which tripled my insurance plus car payments, my Mom stopped helping me with rent, that's another couple hundred bucks I don't have each month, I just overdraft my checking account paying for the down payment on the car, stacking fees on that, my electric bill just came in and it's $400 and I don't know how, my credit card decided to up the interest rate on me again, I mean, what do you want from me?"
His only response was the click of him hanging up the phone.
The big reason I do buy the blood from a stone argument is because I've been there, I have family there, and there's just stuff that really sucks when you're poor. (link NSFW)
|
If anyone wants to ban the unions from making campaign contributions, I might support them.
Funny, I actually prefer Al Jazeera to most domestic news sources these days.
|
|
It might. Did you have an example in mind?The Federal government executing one doesn't count?A corporation is a person when "it" serves in the military.Or when the state of Texas executes one.
Enron. They were in the black (they had billions in cash reserves), but got caught artificially pumping up their stock price by hiding losses. A few people should have gone to prison, but the Feds basically executed the corporation.
Basically, their stock prices would have been maybe ten dollars a share lower had they accurately claimed the losses from Brazil and Africa, but the stock price would have still been respectable. The company was far from being in dire straits.
The whole shebang basically came about because the Clinton Justice Department started digging after Enron, El Paso, and Reliant took huge advantage of California's idiotic decision to deregulate their energy sector. They couldn't find corporate dirt on El Paso or Reliant (although a few individuals were convicted of unrelated insider trading charges), but they hit the goldmine with Enron and their stupidly greedy accounting practices.
I don't really blame the government at all, i think they did what should be done when corporations get out of hand, but I kind of wish they did the same thing in '07-'09 with all of the Wall Street firms, all of whom were much worse than Enron could ever have hoped to be.
Sources: a ton of reading and being this guy's cellie for a year and a half. Minor quibble with the article. He was released from FCI Bastrop, not Beaumont.
Well my Flat tax argument was misconstrued a bit.
I was argueing that a flat 20% across the board is the way to fix unfair influence peddling at the federal level of government. I was not arguing that it is the best way to actually tax the population.
Taxes are how congress repay their donors and supporters.
They massage the tax code to benefit the people who get them (re)elected. This is not new, it's how taxes work in virtually every form of government, not just a representative democracy, our Republic.
Congress needs vast money to stay in power, that requires donors almost more than voters.
Corporations benefit from the most "deep tissue" form of tax massage. They get to differ offshore earnings, they deduct capital gains, in some cases they've even managed to get a one time tax break for moving their workforce overseas.
By forcing a flat 20% tax on their Gross Revenue you eliminate alot of skullduggery. You also level the playing field between corporations in the same sector (like energy) who are offering wildly different services (wind power vs fossil fuel). Now they will still continue to lobby congress on policy issues and for govt contracts but a set in stone, no loophole taxcode means that they will have to actually DO something tangible other than write checks to Congressmen.
The 20% on individuals would have a huge effect on govt revenues.
Yes we currently have a progressive tax code, but it is deeply flawed in how it taxes individuals. Theoretically the more you make the higher the percentage of income you pay. That falls apart however when you consider the ACTUAL disparity in income in this country.
Example.
Bob makes $100,000 annually via his salary.
His tax rate is 32 % (guessing here)
Mark makes $100,000 annually.
Marks income is $40,000 on salary and 60k via rental properties, farm lease income, and performance bonuses paid in a lump sum.
So his rate is 26% on 40k
And .............15% on 60k
His 60k is all capital gains.
Most Americans don't have substantial capital gains income. None of the poor do. This is where you get the disparity, not all income is equal. The funny thing is that in America the money you have to go out and make (your job via wage) is taxed higher than the money that works for you ( property like farm income or an apartment house). That's just weird, but it is the result of a taxcode that has been massaged by congress.
Taxes will always be a burden on the poor disproportionate to the rich. Anyone who tells you different is a dirty fibber. What happens in America is that taxes are a heavier burden on the middle class or the middle 5th percentile. This group makes to much for the lower-class vote buys and not enough for the upper-class handouts. They get squeezed from both ends but since this is the middle they are really hard to pander to. This is also the group least likely to take the hand out for some odd reason.
Now the EITC; Earned Income Tax Credit, is a unique case.
It is a replacement for welfare.
It is a massage of the tax code.
It is a necessary stop gap to protect the working family.
It is also the reason that Fox News reports that "47% of American low income earners don't pay taxes". They won't say that though, because an awful lot of their viewers get that tax credit. These people pay taxes, every week it gets deducted from their check. They just get the money back at the end of the year, so it either offsets the tax they would owe at filing or actually produces a big refund (for the two bottom 5ths of the workforce).
It'll not likely ever go away, it's wildly popular with both Parties in Congress, a huge percentage of the population ( everyone making less than $48,000 per year with a dependent child), and the top 1% of earners. That 1% likes it because it is an encouragement to have children who will become good consumers and eventually workers. Without the EITC, it would be financial suicide to have kids in this country.
The detractors of the EITC are rare but they make valid points.
The guys on the Right point to the lack of taxable contribution from EITC beneficiaries and that rather large cost of the program, they argue that the credit puts an unfair burden on small businesses who are the only group left to tax. (Since taxing the very wealthy is out of the question and taxing corporations is almost impossible in our current model).
The guys in the Middle argue that the EITC has created an entire generation of Americans who now view the federal government as a cost neutral operation. This in turn produces people who pay no attention to the government and how they blow through tax revenue. Personally I think this is what the actual members of Congress like about this tax credit, Incumbents vastly prefer elections with tiny turnouts. (Just look at what happened when Obama got elected).
The guys on the left argue the middle's point but from the standpoint that this tax credit has allowed a huge swath of the American population to vote against their own economic interests by not seeing how rigged the system is against them.
Enron was not executed. It commited suicide.
Just like MCI worldcom
And Lehman Brothers and the Royal bank of Scotland.
AIG had a division that tried to shoot itself in the head, but it was too fat and couldn't line up the shot.
By forcing a flat 20% tax on their Gross Revenue you eliminate alot of skullduggery. You also level the playing field between corporations in the same sector (like energy) who are offering wildly different services (wind power vs fossil fuel). Now they will still continue to lobby congress on policy issues and for govt contracts but a set in stone, no loophole taxcode means that they will have to actually DO something tangible other than write checks to Congressmen.You can't do this. A 20% tax on Revenue would destroy almost every business in the country. Almost no one has a 20% profit margin.
I'm aware.
Businesses are set up from creation to operate in an environment where tax loopholes are known, 90% of American businesses are designed to make very little money, it's actually a goal.
Do you know what our current corporate tax rate is?
It's alot higher than you think, but it's meaningless because of the loopholes.
The percentage would likely need not be anywhere near 20%.
10% of GDP is a staggering amount of money.
The pre tax development model is a strong argument. It's what most likely set up the U.S. as the world dominate innovator in technology in the 50's and 60's. Sadly as we've moved forward it has become far more likely that companies spend enormous amounts on bonuses to the top end of employees as a better expense. That those bonuses aren't taxed much comparatively leaves the govt strapped for cash and companies in a state of stasis sometimes. This is what is really sorry with our system; it rewards mediocrity in Buisness.
I'd see a smaller tax rate for the small Buisness. But the definition of the small Buisness would need to be clarified. It's too easy to set up a tax dodge as a small Buisness in this country.
Just to say I'm good with allowing for development to be tax free.