I saw a lot of things around this country that I wouldn't have had the chance to, including people who have done everything right, but never managed to get that leg up they need. I saw straight A students who were never going to get out of a manager job at fast food because they'd never make enough to go to school and support their families. I saw a lot more poor who worked hard, were too proud for handouts, and weren't ever going to get out of the hole they were born into than I saw welfare bums. Working poor. Something I never believed in as a high school student.And I work at a community college, and I see students worse off than your straight-A managers that somehow are able to take classes and make their lives better (of course with Obama suggesting to cut Pell grants this will get harder).This is a false claim. You don't know the situations I'm speaking of, and based on 'Straight As in high school' and 'manager at fast food', you don't have enough information to make those judgments. Likewise, I lack the information to claim the reverse. I can just as easily make it up that the people I saw were worse off than those you saw. I don't find it productive though.
Thing about going to school when you have a bad job is that you need time off. This can immediately cost you your job. If you have other people who depend on you, like your sister, niece, parents, etc, you can't make that choice by yourself. You can't just quit and tough it out on ramen, because it isn't just you. Bad jobs also tend to demand omni-availability, making it impossible to even get a single definite day off, so even if you have the money, you won't have the time. A lot of programs that help poor people go to school are available online or at the school. If you don't have internet, you can't access these programs, and you'll never find out about them because you are always working your bad job.
Not a straight-A student in high school < a straight-A student in high school (for probability of success)
Not having a managerial job (or any job possibly) < a managerial job (for probability of success)
I think I can say fairly confidently that I have indeed seen real live people worse off then your fictional person you put forth (notice I am not saying all of the people I work with are worse off, merely some are). And many of those people, through hard work, a lot of low sleep nights, and a lot of support from their loved ones (yes, dad might actually have to be responsible for his own kids on some nights so mom can take classes), have improved their lives.
I realize not everyone can do it, they don't have the drive, ability, and/or support system to make it happen. But neither is it impossible to do so either. Being born into poverty isn't a guarantee that one has to stay in that state. We can not control all of the things that will effect us, but that doesn't mean we have no control over our lives. Control what you can, prepare yourself for what you can not and try to deal with it as best you can.
"Luck favors the prepared." -Louis Pasteur
|
For me, taxation is necessary for any society.
Morality enters into it only in that the method of taxation should do the greatest good for the smallest harm - and that where the disagreements start! :)
I think income tax is a big problem. Taxes naturally depress whatever is being taxed. When you tax alcohol, you make it less affordable. This depresses the market for alcohol that would exist without the taxation. When you tax gas, the demand for gasoline is depressed. Taxes on luxuries depress those luxuries more than taxes on staple depress the market for staples...because, well, you NEED one and WANT the other...but there's still a downward pressure on the market due to taxation (people find ways to cut corners when the price gets too high). So...taxes on income depress production. Progressive taxes on income depress higher income more than they depress lower income. What does this lead to? A pressure on the general market to DEPRESS INCOME, and thus retard the accumulation of wealth.
Capital gains taxes are at a lower rate. This means that those that already have their principal find it easier to keep it. Those that are trying to work their way up to having those same levels of principal are slowed at reaching their goal by the progressive nature of income taxes.
Capital gains taxes are lower for another reason - capital is the lifeblood of the economy - you want to encourage investment. A big part of our current economic woes is that banks are not investing nearly as much - the flow of capital is restricted for various and sundry reasons.
That's why I'm in favor of the FairTax. The FairTax abolishes all taxation except for a consumption tax. A national sales tax. This tax rate must be high to keep our national tax revenues at the same level - and to finance the "prebate". The prebate is money sent at the beginning of the month to each household based off a calculation of how much in sales taxes would be spent by the residents of the household if they earned a poverty level income and spent it all on necessities - eseentially if you earn poverty level or lower income and spend all your money on the necessities of life, the government pays you your taxes back BEFORE the month begins. This keeps those living from paycheck to paycheck from being taxed into the ground buying basic necessities - and it depresses consumption instead of production.
I like this because I feel it's more efficient. As the sales tax is charged only on the sale of NEW products and services (there is no economic activity exempted from taxation), recycling and repair of current product will become much more popular. There would be enforcement issue dealing with underground markets, but considering the enforcement and manpower spent NOW by citizens and corporate identities on compliance, and the amound of money the IRS spends on not only enforcement, but on trying to explain the intricacies of compliance to entities attempting to pay their tax debt responsibly, I feel that would be a wash or a net gain. And I think encouraging our economy to be based on consumption and services rather than manufacturing is dangerous and ultimately not self-sustaining.
Add in that removing the current status of corporations as taxation middlemen increases the competitiveness (sp?) of their products overseas (the taxes are all at point of sale, instead of baked into products that go overseas) and lowers their regulatory and taxation burdens at home should increase their presence in the US instead of encouraging them to move overseas, and I think it'd be a much better method.
Whatever your feelings about taxes, or people paying them, be a decent human being and don't make libelous assumptions about what is likely to be the vast majority of humanity as off hand comments to defend your position. You want to make the world a better place? How about starting with that.Amen.Agreed. Stating that the poor are lazy, stupid, etc. is simply a libelous assumption.
So is saying....
Many wealthy people are only that way because they inherited their wealth, and their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it.
I said "many". Not all, or some, or few, or most, or all but one. I also did NOT say that there weren't lazy and stupid poor people. There are. There are MANY, in fact. How many of each is a question I can't answer.
There was context involved in what I said. Honestly, if something I write is hypocritical, I'm glad to be called on it. But I did take the time to think about what I was writing, and to edit for spelling and grammar (even though I always miss something). Nobody likes being quote mined.
To clarify: many people are lazy. Many people are stupid. Many people are hard-working. Many people are wealthy. Many people are smart. Many people are poor. These groups can intersect (except for the polar opposites). The idea that being poor is a moral failing is what offends me. The unwritten subtext of the argument I was responding to is that being poor is the poor persons fault because they are stupid and lazy. This is not true. Wealthy people can be (and many are) just as stupid and lazy as poor people. Many poor people are just as hard working and smart as many wealthy people. Being wealthy DOES NOT imply either moral or ethical superiority or inferiority to being poor. I apologize for not making that as clear as I thought I had.
Also, I meant what I said when I said "Many wealthy people are only that way because they inherited their wealth, and their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it."
I didn't mean that for all persons in any given subset, nor did I pass any judgment on the persons in question. It was just a statement of simple fact. A person can be wealthy, but of below average intelligence, or of average intelligence. Such a person, through no fault of their own, may be completely unsuited to managing their own wealth. They may be unsuited because they are lazy, or stupid, rather than any lack of desire or training. A smarter, harder working person may be called upon to manage this person's wealth for them. It probably rankles a bit.
Honestly, the Idiot Boss and Spoiled Rich Kid and Rich Daddy who buys everything for his worthless children are cliches for a reason. Just like the Poor Moron or the Lazy Welfare Leech. They all exist. Pointing this out doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Anyway, methinks the lady doth protest too much at this point. So this lady's done with this rather excessively verbose post.
Not a straight-A student in Not a straight-A student in high school < a straight-A student in high school (for probability of success)
Not having a managerial job (or any job possibly) < a managerial job (for probability of success)
I think I can say fairly confidently that I have indeed seen real live people worse off then your fictional person you put forth (notice I am not saying all of the people I work with are worse off, merely some are). And many of those people, through hard work, a lot of low sleep nights, and a lot of support from their loved ones (yes, dad might actually have to be responsible for his own kids on some nights so mom can take classes), have improved their lives.
I realize not everyone can do it, they don't have the drive, ability, and/or support system to make it happen. But neither is it impossible to do so either. Being born into poverty isn't a guarantee that one has to stay in that state. We can not control all of the things that will effect us, but that doesn't mean we have no control over our lives. Control what you can, prepare yourself for what you can not and try to deal with it as best you can.
"Luck favors the prepared." -Louis Pasteur
Ah. You want to be an ass, claim I'm making someone up, but your 'worse off' people are real. That's fine, this is an internet debate, and you don't risk getting punched in the face for making groundless claims about people's life experiences like you might at a bar or some other venue of conversation. However, it does render any point you try to make without merit as far as I'm concerned. Someone who enjoys sticking their fingers in their ears and humming likely doesn't work at a community college and makes their assumptions of welfare and social situations based off what they've learned in their parents' basement.
As for any follow up, I think Zombie already covered that. Some people do manage to crawl out of poverty. Some people manage to win the lottery. Neither is a good example of a reasonable expectation under the current system.
|
America was BORN in a rebellion about unfair taxes. We had NO tax for a long time and grudgingly accepted it as a necessary evil much later. Only in the last few decades has it become a tool of social engineering, something our founders would kill or die to preventIntellectually bankrupt appeal to authority is intellectually bankrupt.
Our founders also institutionalized slavery, marginalized women, stole land through murder, broke promises and treaties and never even dreamed of many of the wonders and horrors we experience every day without batting an eye. Their views are not timeless, divine nor flawless, even when they are properly attributed and not twisted for political points.
If you read Rawls, you should probably read his counterpoint Nozick. Anarchy, State and Utopia. You will find a reasoned and logical support for some of your beliefs. Some of the implications might disturb you, or they might not.
I served in America's military from '98-'06. I saw a lot of things around this country that I wouldn't have had the chance to, including people who have done everything right, but never managed to get that leg up they need. I saw straight A students who were never going to get out of a manager job at fast food because they'd never make enough to go to school and support their families. I saw a lot more poor who worked hard, were too proud for handouts, and weren't ever going to get out of the hole they were born into than I saw welfare bums. Working poor. Something I never believed in as a high school student.
The systems are broken. If you give a single unworking mother $600 a month, and if she earns $200 that month, you cut her down to $400, why would she ever be encouraged to get a job that pays less than 600 a month? Why is food assistance open only on Friday mornings from 9-12, making sure that only people who have all morning to stand around in line can sign up for it?
I'm afraid after finding out that all the poor people in the world weren't lazy...
I come from working poor, am currently living in an area full of Welfare leeches. I see both sides and respect only one. Some of the working poor need a little assistance, life can kick you even if you do everything right. But the cradle to grave welfare they rob from people like me that work ourselves to death in an honest job is immoral. Taxes are needed, infrastructure and public safety need to be funded. Unlimited free rides are immoral as them breaking into my home and stealing what they want. We need to start addressing personal responsibility, not endorsing random pregnancy and spending sprees. It is not that SOME taxes are taken that pisses me off, it is where it GOES. I am a firm believer in charity, part of a large organisation that donates millions but charity is offered, not demanded and robbed. The rich once gave much with a free heart and are now feeling shaken down for causes they may not want to be involved in. It just ins't right.
|
|
Not a straight-A student in Not a straight-A student in high school < a straight-A student in high school (for probability of success)
Not having a managerial job (or any job possibly) < a managerial job (for probability of success)
I think I can say fairly confidently that I have indeed seen real live people worse off then your fictional person you put forth (notice I am not saying all of the people I work with are worse off, merely some are). And many of those people, through hard work, a lot of low sleep nights, and a lot of support from their loved ones (yes, dad might actually have to be responsible for his own kids on some nights so mom can take classes), have improved their lives.
I realize not everyone can do it, they don't have the drive, ability, and/or support system to make it happen. But neither is it impossible to do so either. Being born into poverty isn't a guarantee that one has to stay in that state. We can not control all of the things that will effect us, but that doesn't mean we have no control over our lives. Control what you can, prepare yourself for what you can not and try to deal with it as best you can.
"Luck favors the prepared." -Louis Pasteur
Ah. You want to be an ass, claim I'm making someone up, but your 'worse off' people are real. That's fine, this is an internet debate, and you don't risk getting punched in the face for making groundless claims about people's life experiences like you might at a bar or some other venue of conversation. However, it does render any point you try to make without merit as far as I'm concerned. Someone who enjoys sticking their fingers in their ears and humming likely doesn't work at a community college and makes their assumptions of welfare and social situations based off what they've learned in their parents' basement.
As for any follow up, I think Zombie already covered that. Some people do manage to crawl out of poverty. Some people manage to win the lottery. Neither is a good example of a...
So you refuse to believe that hard work can accomplish more than holding a hand out for the Gov. to fill? We have military, college funding, many of the poor can improve their lives dramatically if they CHOOSE. sure some will be too dull for college or physically incapable of military (like i was, still wish i could have been in) but the majority CAN better themselves if they try. The welfare mentality is "why try?" when they can get taken care of. I would rather see military, college or gov. funded business loans than infinite handouts, and for godsake start teaching kids to be responsible.
You suspect Poe's law is at play here?I'm not the one that think "fair" involves taking from some for the good of others.....You don't understand -- I honestly can't tell. I'm leaning toward yes, you're serious...but some of what you post is just so pitch perfect that I can't help but wonder.
Yes...I just didn't have a name for it. Thank you!
Yes...I just didn't have a name for it. Thank you!You suspect Poe's law is at play here?I'm not the one that think "fair" involves taking from some for the good of others.....You don't understand -- I honestly can't tell. I'm leaning toward yes, you're serious...but some of what you post is just so pitch perfect that I can't help but wonder.
It has crossed my mind too.
|
|
Zombieneighbours original list of "social ills" is highly innaccurate. In many places the statistics are meaningless because they are not even comparissons. For instance, the much touted life expectancy figure. The actual life expectancy for Americans is quite high compared to other countries, but the "average" life expectancy is lower. Just removing deaths by car accidents from each nation jumps the US into the top 20. It is because of the much higher vehicle use in the US and the fact that car accidents kill a disportinate number of young people, that our "average" drops so much. Also, I liked the clever use of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP as opposed to actual aid levels. In fact, the US amount of foreign aid is greater than the next ten countries combined total. There are others (specifically infant mortality rate) that are also bogus.
come from working poor, am currently living in an area full of Welfare leeches. I see both sides and respect only one. Some of the working poor need a little assistance, life can kick you even if you do everything right. But the cradle to grave welfare they rob from people like me that work ourselves to death in an honest job is immoral. Taxes are needed, infrastructure and public safety need to be funded. Unlimited free rides are immoral as them breaking into my home and stealing what they want. We need to start addressing personal responsibility, not endorsing random pregnancy and spending sprees. It is not that SOME taxes are taken that pisses me off, it is where it GOES. I am a firm believer in charity, part of a large organisation that donates millions but charity is offered, not demanded and robbed. The rich once gave much with a free heart and are now feeling shaken down for causes they may not want to be involved in. It just ins't right.
Andrew:
I remain unsure, but I'm going to assume you're for real. Which leaves me with a few questions:
1. How old are you?
2. What is your level of education?
I'm not asking these things in mockery. Your position seems earnest, but very simplisitic.
No, I'm asking because...well, I'm your boogeyman. No, I'm not a socialist. But I do subscribe to Keynesian economics. And the thing is, I think if you're willing to (and capapble of) engaging in a conversation more nuanced than trading bumper sticker slogans, you may find that we have more in common than you seem to think. For example, I also believe in the importance of personal responsibility, and don't endorse "random" pregnancy.
My point is simple: There is more than a caricature on the "other side," but you'll only notce it if you actuallly look. Of course, tar and feathering is much less challenging. Political pundits are proof of that...
|
|
That's why I'm in favor of the FairTax. The FairTax abolishes all taxation except for a consumption tax. A national sales tax. This tax rate must be high to keep our national tax revenues at the same level - and to finance the "prebate". The prebate is money sent at the beginning of the month to each household based off a calculation of how much in sales taxes would be spent by the residents of the household if they earned a poverty...
Is the fair tax going to be regressive - especially on the middle class? Things like the prebate help the poor, but if they pay less, and the high income people pay less, the middle has to suck up the tax hit.
Is the fair tax going to be regressive - especially on the middle class? Things like the prebate help the poor, but if they pay less, and the high income people pay less, the middle has to suck up the tax hit.That's why I'm in favor of the FairTax. The FairTax abolishes all taxation except for a consumption tax. A national sales tax. This tax rate must be high to keep our national tax revenues at the same level - and to finance the "prebate". The prebate is money sent at the beginning of the month to each household based off a calculation of how much in sales taxes would be spent by the residents of the household if they earned a poverty...
It is a rather speedy death to the middle class ;)
Ah. You want to be an ass, claim I'm making someone up, but your 'worse off' people are real.
Looking back on your posts, I see you were referring to real, so I apology for suggesting they were not real, I will take your word for it. I just misremembered and thought you were saying someone could theoretically be in that position. Again, I was in error.
That's fine, this is an internet debate, and you don't risk getting punched in the face for making groundless claims about people's life experiences like you might at a bar or some other venue of conversation.
I would suggest that resorting to violence is never warranted, no matter the positions others take. I would hope that if anyone regular assaults others that disagree with them, that they should seek immediate anger management help.
However, it does render any point you try to make without merit as far as I'm concerned. Someone who enjoys sticking their fingers in their ears and humming likely doesn't work at a community college and makes their assumptions of welfare and social situations based off what they've learned in their parents' basement.
Pot and kettle? Seriously though, I have read your comments. You suggest these people could not have improved their lives, I suggest that at least for some it is possible. Telling them it is not is often a self-fulling prophecy. I do in fact teach at a community college, usually teaching night classes. My students tend to be 1/3 traditional and 2/3 non-traditional. Of the non-traditionals, most have to work all day and then come and take classes at night. I know the challenges they face, from sick children, to no day care, to being called in to work unexpectantly. I try to work them as much as I can, but in the end, whether they succeed or fail has more to do with how much effort they put in the course than it will ever have to do with me.
As for any follow up, I think Zombie already covered that. Some people do manage to crawl out of poverty. Some people manage to win the lottery. Neither is a good example of a reasonable expectation under the current system.
I don't think non-trads going back to school and trying to make a better life for them and their families can in anyway be compared to playing the lottery. For my students, the two major means to success is regular attendance and completing the work. That doesn't guarantee a passing grade, but I've only see a handful who dedicated that amount of time and effort, not succeed. And those are two things that the student has 100% control over. No luck is necessary.
So you refuse to believe that hard work can accomplish more than holding a hand out for the Gov. to fill? We have military, college funding, many of the poor can improve their lives dramatically if they CHOOSE. sure some will be too dull for college or physically incapable of military (like i was, still wish i could have been in) but the majority CAN better themselves if they try. The welfare mentality is "why try?" when they can get taken care of. I would rather see military, college or gov. funded business loans than infinite handouts, and for godsake start teaching kids to be responsible.
Not a straight-A student in Not a straight-A student in high school < a straight-A student in high school (for probability of success)
Not having a managerial job (or any job possibly) < a managerial job (for probability of success)
I think I can say fairly confidently that I have indeed seen real live people worse off then your fictional person you put forth
Ah. You want to be an ass, claim I'm making someone up, but your 'worse off' people are real. That's fine, this is an internet debate, and you don't risk getting punched in the face for making groundless claims about people's life experiences like you might at a bar or some other venue of conversation. However, it does render any point you try to make without merit as far as I'm concerned. Someone who enjoys sticking their fingers in their ears and humming likely doesn't work at a community college and makes their assumptions of welfare and social situations based off what they've learned in their parents' basement.
As for any follow up, I think Zombie already covered that. Some people do manage to crawl out of poverty. Some people manage to win the lottery. Neither is a good example of a reasonable expectation under the current system.
What part of a response to someone who is accusing me of lying suggested to you any of my beliefs on hard work or government help?
come from working poor, am currently living in an area full of Welfare leeches. I see both sides and respect only one. Some of the working poor need a little assistance, life can kick you even if you do everything right. But the cradle to grave welfare they rob from people like me that work ourselves to death in an honest job is immoral. Taxes are needed, infrastructure and public safety need to be funded. Unlimited free rides are immoral as them breaking into my home and stealing what they want. We need to start addressing personal responsibility, not endorsing random pregnancy and spending sprees. It is not that SOME taxes are taken that pisses me off, it is where it GOES. I am a firm believer in charity, part of a large organisation that donates millions but charity is offered, not demanded and robbed. The rich once gave much with a free heart and are now feeling shaken down for causes they may not want to be involved in. It just ins't right.I'm not asking these things in mockery. Your position seems earnest, but very simplisitic.
Agreed. It seems black and white in a very extreme spectrum sense.
It is a rather speedy death to the middle class ;)
Under our current tax laws, it is corporations that serve to benefit most from a consumption tax. I looked into it because on the surface it looked like a very good idea, and one I could wholly get behind.
Then I looked at where the funding came from. This is my usual go-to when I see upcoming legislation.
Turns out, there's built in exemptions for consumption as part of production of goods and services.
The thing is, business expenses are *already* tax deductible up to a point, so doing away with income tax would mean entirely negating the taxes the government gets from large corporations. Even though most big companies dodge taxes already, what they do give back is still a *lot* of money.
It's the middle class that would make up the difference.
Which is why the FairTax initiative has such a long list of corporate and right-wing sponsors.
Short Version: FairTax primarily benefits those who least need the help, and does not pass the Veil of Ignorance test. To me that makes it a no-go.
It is a rather speedy death to the middle class ;)Under our current tax laws, it is corporations that serve to benefit most from a consumption tax. I looked into it because on the surface it looked like a very good idea, and one I could wholly get behind.
Then I looked at where the funding came from. This is my usual go-to when I see upcoming legislation.
Turns out, there's built in exemptions for consumption as part of production of goods and services.
The thing is, business expenses are *already* tax deductible up to a point, so doing away with income tax would mean entirely negating the taxes the government gets from large corporations. Even though most big companies dodge taxes already, what they do give back is still a *lot* of money.
It's the middle class that would make up the difference.
Which is why the FairTax initiative has such a long list of corporate and right-wing sponsors.
Short Version: FairTax primarily benefits those who least need the help, and does not pass the Veil of Ignorance test. To me that makes it a no-go.
Jess Door, your thoughts/counter?
|
|
As far as redistribution of wealth, I leave it to better men than me....
"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence... I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
Abraham Lincoln
And...
"The Utopian schemes of leveling [wealth re-distributuion] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our [US] government, unconstitutional."
Samuel Adams
As far as redistribution of wealth, I leave it to better men than me....
"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence... I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
Abraham Lincoln
And yet...
Lincoln waged a war for four years in order to bring about the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history; he, or rather his general staff, certainly pulled down a lot of houses.
Ah. You want to be an ass, claim I'm making someone up, but your 'worse off' people are real.Looking back on your posts, I see you were referring to real, so I apology for suggesting they were not real, I will take your word for it. I just misremembered and thought you were saying someone could theoretically be in that position. Again, I was in error.
Well that completely diffuses the hostility in me. I thought you were being purposely antagonistic. As one of the people in question was my ex-girlfriend, I feel I had a rather up close and personal look at a portion of society that I'd never seen prior to my enlistment.
I would suggest that resorting to violence is never warranted, no matter the positions others take. I would hope that if anyone regular assaults others that disagree with them, that they should seek immediate anger management help.
Not for disagreeing. For accusing someone of lying without any evidence of such. I hope no one regularly assaults people for disagreeing with their position.
However, it does render any point you try to make without merit as far as I'm concerned. Someone who enjoys sticking their fingers in their ears and humming likely doesn't work at a community college and makes their assumptions of welfare and social situations based off what they've learned in their parents' basement.Pot and kettle? Seriously though, I have read your comments. You suggest these people could not have improved their lives, I suggest that at least for some it is possible. Telling them it is not is often a self-fulling prophecy. I do in fact teach at a community college, usually teaching night classes. My students tend to be 1/3 traditional and 2/3 non-traditional. Of the non-traditionals, most have to work all day and then come and take classes at night. I know the challenges they face, from sick children, to no day care, to being called in to work unexpectantly. I try to work them as much as I can, but in the end, whether they succeed or fail has more to do with how much effort they put in the course than it will ever have to do with me.
So you did see what I did there, yes? It wasn't accidental. As for the actual points, yes, I suggest they could not improve their lives in the situation they were in. My exgirlfriend for instance, despite being 18, had to work overtime to support her sister, parents and her sister's child. She barely made enough to pay her bills, never spent any money on herself, and was essentially trapped, barring some sudden excess of money that would free both her financial burden and time one. Adding an expense like college wouldn't even be possible from a monetary perspective, but even if college was 100% free for her, she'd not have the time to put into even just attending class, let alone doing all the work that I know college can be out of the class.
And I'd never have told her that she couldn't improve her life. I made that evaluation and kept it to myself. On a personal level, everyone needs to keep trying, no matter how hard the system is stacked against them. On a systemic level, that doesn't mean the system isn't stacked against them.
I don't think non-trads going back to school and trying to make a better life for them and their families can in anyway be compared to playing the lottery. For my students, the two major means to success is regular attendance and completing the work. That doesn't guarantee a passing grade, but I've only see a handful who dedicated that amount of time and effort, not succeed. And those are two things that the student has 100% control over. No luck is necessary.
I compared it to winning the lottery. Playing the lottery would be analogous to being in poverty in the metaphor. I'm currently in college with the money from the GI Bill plus loans putting me through school. My semester allows for almost no free time. I have some time between classes that I can hop on Paizo and Dicefreaks to banter with other nerds, but that's about it. My evenings are dedicated to accomplishing the mountains of work my professors expect me to turn in every two days or classes themselves. It isn't hard, but it is very time consuming. I'm lucky that I managed to get into a position where I don't need a job to support myself during the semester, but not everyone has. Certainly if I had other lives that depended on me working, I couldn't do college.
I'm not saying it is impossible. Those people deserve props for doing what they did. What I'm saying is that it isn't easy, and it isn't even moderate. It is a lot of massive, taxing work. There are many who will fail attempting it. There are many who look at it and can't even see a real benefit in risking that failure.
Changing the system to better help people who are down is a good thing. People who succeed despite hardship are to be respected, not looked at as the standard.
|
|
Maybe I am just missing the point here. Of course on some types of money matters I give as blank of a look to people as they do when I am discussing theoretical physics.
Taxes are for governmental infrastructure, as far as I am aware it is not, and should not be used for social engineering and wealth redistribution. Is that not why we have had our big recession and why with the massive amounts of money we just wrote to buy our way out of it we are just postponing the inevitable? I am not questioning anyone's beliefs here just trying to understand the point.
|
|
Maybe I am just missing the point here. Of course on some types of money matters I give as blank of a look to people as they do when I am discussing theoretical physics.
Taxes are for governmental infrastructure, as far as I am aware it is not, and should not be used for social engineering and wealth redistribution. Is that not why we have had our big recession and why with the massive amounts of money we just wrote to buy our way out of it we are just postponing the inevitable? I am not questioning anyone's beliefs here just trying to understand the point.
You've hit on one of the key areas of disagreement. What role(s) should taxation play in society.
Now the big recession was not caused by taxation levels - it was caused by a lack of oversight and regulation in your financial sector and the moral hazards caused by tying bonus pay to short term returns (leading people to favour derivative products that are super swingy and can show (on paper) massive rate of returns very quickly).
Some tax scholars have argued that the international tax system (the ease of getting money offshore) also contributed by freeing up lots of capital to speculate with.
Back to the recession and taxation levels:
If you look at the periods of time where the US saw the most rapid growth in its economy after WWII, I'd bet you'd find the highest rates of taxation.
If you look at the period of time where the US saw the most rapid growth in its economy, I'd bet you'd find the highest rates of taxation.
This is true.
A little visual perspective-
They're political cartoons, and therefor kind of insulting. Please don't shut out the information because of the method of delivery.
|
|
There were some debates / op ed pieces about income inequality in the financial post, I'll try to grab all three articles.
The initial op ed
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/16/terence-corcoran-the-myth-of-in equality/
First Response
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/27/the-great-inequality-debate-lin da-mcquaig-and-neil-brooks/
Second Response
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/27/the-great-inequality-debate-ala n-reynolds/
Earlier related article
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/15/timothy-noah-the-great-incom e-divergence-is-changing-america-for-the-worse/
It is a Canadian newspaper.
|
|
Not actually true, the tax rates were extremely high under FDR and it is well argued that his economic policies actually extended the depression. Immediately after WWII we started to slide back into a recssion until Congress cut federal spending and reduced taxes. The largest and longest period of peacetime economic growth occured in the '80s after Reagan cut tax rates in half (and tax revenues actually doubled in those eight years). The other big boom in peacetime economic growth occured after Kennedy cut taxes in the early '60s. Now we must differentiate between income taxes (which are highly repressive and inhibit economic growth) and other forms of taxation (sales tax, tariffs, etc.)when discussing taxes in general as they have vastly different effects on the economy.
|
|
Is the fair tax going to be regressive - especially on the middle class? Things like the prebate help the poor, but if they pay less, and the high income people pay less, the middle has to suck up the tax hit.That's why I'm in favor of the FairTax.
Compared to now? It pretty much HAS to be. Consider: only 51% of taxpayers actually pay income tax.
But the economy is not a zero sum game. For some to have, others do not have to NOT have proportionally. There is more wealth on the planet than there was 200 years ago. Human productivity creates wealth.
The key is, how do we encourage that?
The current tax structure discourages the accumulation of wealth, discourages entreprneurship, and encourages the holding of wealth. And don't forget how much time and effort is taken up in our economy simply trying to be in compliance with tax laws. Also consider, how many economic decisions are made that, in real terms, destroy wealth, but allow a taxpayer to avoid taxes?
I have a friend who is a doctor. She earns good money - more than I. But she's paying off her many more years of school loans. Under current tax rules, it is to her advantage to purposely make poor investments for the express purpose of losing money...this allows her to pay fewer taxes.
This is simply the definition of counter-productive from the perspective of improving the country's economic health - we are encouraging people to invest money into failure rather than success to keep more of what they earn.
There are some people who would lose badly during the switch to the FairTax. Those on a fixed income above the poverty level would experience pain at first, as the sales tax increases prices on products, but the savings on the tax and regulations side for corporations would be delayed in reaching the prices they offer on their products - those at or below the poverty level will have their increased expenses covered by the prebate. Many tax accountants would need to retrain to other areas of accounting or other fields entirely.
But after the price changes shake out, and your salary is equal to your take home pay, it will allow those that are more productive to profit in direct propotion to their productivity. Retention of accumulated wealth will no longer be preferred by the system to creation of wealth.
The goal of moral taxation should be to gather the revenue necessary for the legal execution of Constitutional responsibilities in the way that is least harmful the economic health of the nation.
|
|
Not actually true, the tax rates were extremely high under FDR and it is well argued that his economic policies actually extended the depression. Immediately after WWII we started to slide back into a recssion until Congress cut federal spending and reduced taxes. The largest and longest period of peacetime economic growth occured in the '80s after Reagan cut tax rates in half (and tax revenues actually doubled in those eight years). The other big boom in peacetime economic growth occured after Kennedy cut taxes in the early '60s. Now we must differentiate between income taxes (which are highly repressive and inhibit economic growth) and other forms of taxation (sales tax, tariffs, etc.)when discussing taxes in general as they have vastly different effects on the economy.
I'll have to find the numbers but I've got in my shorthand notes that the growth rate during the 80s didn't match that of the 60s or 70s and even though the income of the average american family rose by 11% (from 79-90), 70% of that increase went to the top 1% of earners. The median family income only grew by about 4%. The economy of Canadian provinces (Ontario) with a highest marginal tax rate of 80% were growing at double the pace of the American economy over that period.
Is there a good non biased source for statistics on the american economy? I get the feeling we are going to need some neutral / respected ground to be able to make comparisons off of.
It's clear that, while reading through this post, that many of you are very well read in regards to the tax codes and regulations. Kudos to all of you for your depth and breadth of knowledge on the subject.
Being an outsider to the system myself, I feel somewhat inadequate to the task of making a meaningful contribution to the technical side of the equation.
That being said, I don't believe that morality and the existence of the tax system have an inherent coupling. I think how the tax system is leveraged, and to what ends is where morality comes into play.
Many of the points made against the existing financial system are drawn from comparisons to other countries. In many of these cases it seems that the country we're being compared too is of a much smaller geographic scale and population density, and I wonder if that's been incorporated into those comparisons. I wonder if those countries had to support our population base if they would be able to maintain the numbers that they report... my inclination is that they would not.
The next bit is purely opinion, I can't really back any of it up and you're welcome to disagree with it.
The wealth disparity is huge, and widening. I think the single best thing we can do is tax the rich, and tax them hard. Tax businesses. Tax the people that can afford to be taxed, and take them to town if they lay of workers to maintain the ridiculous income of the priveleged. If they can maintain a personal income that leaves them well above the wealth level, then they certainly don't need to cut jobs.
|
|
I have a friend who is a doctor. She earns good money - more than I. But she's paying off her many more years of school loans. Under current tax rules, it is to her advantage to purposely make poor investments for the express purpose of losing money...this allows her to pay fewer taxes.
This is simply the definition of counter-productive from the perspective of improving the country's economic health - we are encouraging people to invest money into failure rather than success to keep more of what they earn.
I intend to respond to the rest of your well written post - but I'd really like to know how this investment trick works for your friend.
If it is having that effect - that is a terribly designed set of tax provisions.
[I have a friend who is a doctor. She earns good money - more than I. But she's paying off her many more years of school loans. Under current tax rules, it is to her advantage to purposely make poor investments for the express purpose of losing money...this allows her to pay fewer taxes.
This is simply the definition of counter-productive from the perspective of improving the country's economic health - we are encouraging people to invest money into failure rather than success to keep more of what they earn.
if she's intentionally investing in bad ideas for tax relief... isnt' that fraud?
|
|
I'll have to find the numbers but I've got in my shorthand notes that the growth rate during the 80s didn't match that of the 60s or 70s and even though the income of the average american family rose by 11% (from 79-90), 70% of that increase went to the top 1% of earners. The median family income only grew by about 4%. The economy of Canadian provinces (Ontario) with a highest marginal tax rate of 80% were growing at double the pace of the American economy over that period.
Is there a good non biased source for statistics on the american economy? I get the feeling we are going to need some neutral / respected ground to be able to make comparisons off of.
Your confusing economic growth, which is growth of GDP and such, with median income growth. Median income growth is a poor indicator because it is also impacted valuewise by inflation and other factors. GDP increases represent a true growth of the economy of a country. And I can almost garuantee that Ontario's economic growth (not median income growth) did not exceed, much less double, America's economic growth in the '80's.
|
|
It's clear that, while reading through this post, that many of you are very well read in regards to the tax codes and regulations. Kudos to all of you for your depth and breadth of knowledge on the subject.
Being an outsider to the system myself, I feel somewhat inadequate to the task of making a meaningful contribution to the technical side of the equation.
That being said, I don't believe that morality and the existence of the tax system have an inherent coupling. I think how the tax system is leveraged, and to what ends is where morality comes into play.
Many of the points made against the existing financial system are drawn from conclusions to other countries. In many of these cases it seems that the country we're being compared too is of a much smaller geographic scale and population density, and I wonder if that's been incorporated into those comparisons. I wonder if those countries had to support our population base if they would be able to maintain the numbers that they report... my inclination is that they would not.
The next bit is purely opinion, I can't really back any of it up and you're welcome to disagree with it.
The wealth disparity is huge, and widening. I think the single best thing we can do is tax the rich, and tax them hard. Tax businesses. Tax the people that can afford to be taxed, and take them to town if they lay of workers to maintain the ridiculous income of the privileged. If they can maintain a personal income that leaves them well above the wealth level, then they certainly don't need to cut jobs.
The technical side of the conversation is the least important part really - once you determine who, and what, and why you want to tax people, you can pay eggheads to design the system. The most important part is reaching a consensus or an agreement about what the purpose of the tax system is. Everyone has something valuable to contribute to that conversation
Also, if you get the chance, take some time to get to know tax law - its the most fun law and the most interesting, especially the international stuff.
Is the fair tax going to be regressive - especially on the middle class? Things like the prebate help the poor, but if they pay less, and the high income people pay less, the middle has to suck up the tax hit.That's why I'm in favor of the FairTax.
Compared to now? It pretty much HAS to be. Consider: only 51% of taxpayers actually pay income tax.
But the economy is not a zero sum game. For some to have, others do not have to NOT have proportionally. There is more wealth on the planet than there was 200 years ago. Human productivity creates wealth.
The key is, how do we encourage that?
The current tax structure discourages the accumulation of wealth, discourages entreprneurship, and encourages the holding of wealth. And don't forget how much time and effort is taken up in our economy simply trying to be in compliance with tax laws. Also consider, how many economic decisions are made that, in real terms, destroy wealth, but allow a taxpayer to avoid taxes?
I have a friend who is a doctor. She earns good money - more than I. But she's paying off her many more years of school loans. Under current tax rules, it is to her advantage to purposely make poor investments for the express purpose of losing money...this allows her to pay fewer taxes.
This is simply the definition of counter-productive from the perspective of improving the country's economic health - we are encouraging people to invest money into failure rather than success to keep more of what they earn.
There are some people who would lose badly during the switch to the FairTax. Those on a fixed income above the poverty level would experience pain at first, as the sales tax increases prices on products, but the savings on the tax and regulations side for corporations would be delayed in reaching the prices they offer on their products - those at or below the poverty level will have their increased expenses covered by the prebate. Many tax accountants would...
My issue with the Fair Tax as put forth by Jess Door is that I think that the people who lost badly during the switch might never recover and instead form something of a new underclass. Also, the loss of tax accountants is more than a little concerning- in a switch to this setting, you lose an entire portion of society educated specifically to handle taxes, perhaps to be replaced with a new generation of tax accountants, but for a few years there would literally be noone(okay, perhaps a very few) people to explain why and how your taxes had been changed.
|
|
if she's intentionally investing in bad ideas for tax relief... isnt' that fraud?[I have a friend who is a doctor. She earns good money - more than I. But she's paying off her many more years of school loans. Under current tax rules, it is to her advantage to purposely make poor investments for the express purpose of losing money...this allows her to pay fewer taxes.
This is simply the definition of counter-productive from the perspective of improving the country's economic health - we are encouraging people to invest money into failure rather than success to keep more of what they earn.
There is a difference between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal). That difference is what keeps tax lawyers and accountants earning money :)
Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to your own advantage, in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. Tax evasion is efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means.
The current rule of thumb in Canada is from the good ol Duke of Westminster Case:
"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax. "
American judges take a harder line, you have some sham doctrine stuff that we don't. They can look behind the legal form of a business transaction and attach tax liability based on the actual economic substance of a transaction. Here in Canada, they generally can't / don't look behind the legal effect or form of a transaction - unless authorized by an anti avoidance provision in the tax act.
|
|
The next bit is purely opinion, I can't really back any of it up and you're welcome to disagree with it.
The wealth disparity is huge, and widening. I think the single best thing we can do is tax the rich, and tax them hard. Tax businesses. Tax the people that can afford to be taxed, and take them to town if they lay of workers to maintain the ridiculous income of the priveleged. If they can maintain a personal income that leaves them well above the wealth level, then they certainly don't need to cut jobs.
Wow, so what you are essentially saying is that we should not have a free society and that property rights do not exist. Also, that tax the rich hard idea has always failed because then the people with wealth just leave and no one benefits from their investment in the economy.
Wow, so what you are essentially saying is that we should not have a free society and that property rights do not exist. Also, that tax the rich hard idea has always failed because then the people with wealth just leave and no one benefits from their investment in the economy.The next bit is purely opinion, I can't really back any of it up and you're welcome to disagree with it.
The wealth disparity is huge, and widening. I think the single best thing we can do is tax the rich, and tax them hard. Tax businesses. Tax the people that can afford to be taxed, and take them to town if they lay of workers to maintain the ridiculous income of the priveleged. If they can maintain a personal income that leaves them well above the wealth level, then they certainly don't need to cut jobs.
No, he didn't say anything of the sort. While I disagree with his ideas, don't blow them into something they aren't by putting words in his mouth. He clearly holds to an idea that those who have more should be expected to do more.
|
|
My issue with the Fair Tax as put forth by Jess Door is that I think that the people who lost badly during the switch might never recover and instead form something of a new underclass. Also, the loss of tax accountants is more than a little concerning- in a switch to this setting, you lose an entire portion of society educated specifically to handle taxes, perhaps to be replaced with a new generation of tax accountants, but for a few years there would literally be noone(okay, perhaps a very few) people to explain why and how your taxes had been changed.
The sum total of taxes under the FairTax system is: If you purchase a service or a NEW product via a retail outlet (I'm not well versed enough to know exactly how retail outlet should be legally defined), approximately 23% (I don't know what the number is given our current taxation rate, 23% was the revenue neutral tax rate a few years ago) of the price you are paying for said service or product is federal sales tax. And you get a check each month.
That's it.
The FairTax can only work if all other federal taxes - corporate taxes, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, income taxes - are abolished. I believe the bill that is repeated submitted in congress stipulates that if these other forms of taxation go into effect, the sales tax in the bill must end.
This not only taxes consumption instead of production, encouraging the creation of wealth over the maintenance of accumulated wealth, and removes the heavy federal tax burden from our corporations, allowing them to operate on US soil at greatly reduced cost and sell their products overseas at reduced cost, it also reduces the number of entities regulated by tax laws, simplifies the tax code tremendously, lowers the distorting effect our current labyrinthine tax code has on economic activity, forces Congress, when passing new laws, to fund it by raising tax rates across the board instead of targetting smaller, wealthier voting blocs in order to buy votes with other people's money.
Companies will suddenly no longer be paying the hidden 7.5% of your salary current sent to Social Security, and your take home pay will be equal to your salary (Your employer - or you if you are self employed - must send 15% of your salary to the federal government - but you only see 7.5% on your pay stub. For example, let's say your salary is $50,000 (chosen for easy math). Your employer's cost of employing you for your salary alone is actually $53,750. The government gets $7,500 for social security). That extra cash for each employee (social security tax is not progressive) is suddenly the company's to roll into profits, into employee salaries, or into reduced cost of product for end customers. I think someone in any competitive market will eventually give it to lower prices on end products, putting downward pressure on all prices.
If you purchase a service or a NEW product via a retail outlet (I'm not well versed enough to know exactly how retail outlet should be legally defined), approximately 23% (I don't know what the number is given our current taxation rate, 23% was the revenue neutral tax rate a few years ago) of the price you are paying for said service or product is federal sales tax.
I still think that just means that everyone who currently has money will immediately start a "business" and arrange to purchase everything direct-supply, or from overseas, as a business expense. "Yeah, my Hong Kong office bought all that stuff for Hong Kong use; it has nothing to do with the U.S., so no U.S. sales taxes apply!" These people and their "businesses" would thereby avoid all U.S. retail purchases and hence would pay no U.S. taxes at all. Ever.
(As a side note, re: new products, what about 10% post-consumer recycled material in an otherwise new product? There are any number of ways to spin that, too.)
Fair Tax would work if ALL purchases are taxed, without exceptions. Which means that ALL overseas markets and all black markets have to be closed, without exceptions. How can that be done? I'm curious as to how the proposal avoids the above-referenced scenario.
@ Robert Hawkshaw - thanks for the clarification on that, I appreciate your taking the time to educate me!
@ Galahad0430 - I think that taxing the rich heavily has probably had mixed results in the past. I just don't think that social responsibility and individual economic prosperity are intertwined. In fact, I feel that unfettered capitalism might be the single biggest threat to our republic.
@ Kain - Thank you.
I don't believe that the wealthy do enough in our society. I also don't believe that we're small enough as a country to become to socialist and survive, but I'm from Vermont and we're pretty socialist to begin with.
The goal of moral taxation should be to gather the revenue necessary for the legal execution of Constitutional responsibilities in the way that is least harmful the economic health of the nation.
I don't believe many people would disagree. However, some people seem to take exception to the idea that there is such a thing as "moral taxation." A good part of the "Tea Party" actually seems to believe that all taxes are evil and should be abolished. Because, you know, they're exactly like robbery. The sooner that hyperbole gets put to bed, the sooner meaningful discussion about exactly what "the least harmful" way actually *is* becomes a possibility.
|
|
Your confusing economic growth, which is growth of GDP and such, with median income growth. Median income growth is a poor indicator because it is also impacted valuewise by inflation and other factors. GDP increases represent a true growth of the economy of a country. And I can almost garuantee that Ontario's economic growth (not median income growth) did not exceed, much less double, America's economic growth in the '80's.I'll have to find the numbers but I've got in my shorthand notes that the growth rate during the 80s didn't match that of the 60s or 70s and even though the income of the average american family rose by 11% (from 79-90), 70% of that increase went to the top 1% of earners. The median family income only grew by about 4%. The economy of Canadian provinces (Ontario) with a highest marginal tax rate of 80% were growing at double the pace of the American economy over that period.
Is there a good non biased source for statistics on the american economy? I get the feeling we are going to need some neutral / respected ground to be able to make comparisons off of.
You are right. I was completely wrong about the double - I saw 2 and thought double. The quote I'm working from is:
"Moreover, for every year from 1983 to 1989 the rate of real economic growth was greater in the province of Ontario than it was in the United States. In at least three of those years economic growth was 2 percentage points greater in tax weary Ontario than tax free United States"
Source for those numbers cited is:
Ontario Minister of Finance, 1995 Fiscal and Economic Statement, November 1995 Table 19, Data Appendix.
I can find the Fiscal and Economic Statement online, but they don't attach the data appendix, closest thing I can get is page 73 of the report which has ontario's average real gdp growth rate pegged at 3.6 - as near as I can tell, the american real gdp growth rate was 3.05 over the 1980s with 1984 being the banner year at just over 7%.
|
|
Thought I'd drop this off in here as well:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/ - Blog that aggregates interesting tax and policy articles and news.
|
|
The goal of moral taxation should be to gather the revenue necessary for the legal execution of Constitutional responsibilities in the way that is least harmful the economic health of the nation.I don't believe many people would disagree. However, some people seem to take exception to the idea that there is such a thing as "moral taxation." A good part of the "Tea Party" actually seems to believe that all taxes are evil and should be abolished. Because, you know, they're exactly like robbery. The sooner that hyperbole gets put to bed, the sooner meaningful discussion about exactly what "the least harmful" way actually *is* becomes a possibility.
I've said this before and I'll say this again: I've never heard anyone associated with the Tea Party say anything about zero taxation. I have heard a lot of people that seem to dislike the Tea Party or hold it in disdain post this as a Tea Party position quite often, however.
Taxed Enough Already sums this up pretty well.
@Kirth:
This is true, imports would have to be taxed. As they are now if there's tax due on them. And of course all black markets would have to be closed, just like our tax system would fall apart if anyone was paid under the table...oh...wait.
IRS enforcement would, of course, shift from auditing individual and corporate tax returns to auditing retail outlet sales and tracking down black markets. Assuming none of these problems may exist or the whole system will implode is...kinda weird.
A good part of the "Tea Party" actually seems to believe that all taxes are evil and should be abolished. Because, you know, they're exactly like robbery. The sooner that hyperbole gets put to bed, the sooner meaningful discussion about exactly what "the least harmful" way actually *is* becomes a possibility.
Uh, where did you get this info?
This is true, imports would have to be taxed.
And, moreover, non-imports, purchased overseas by overseas branches of part-U.S. companies, and by overseas proxies (even several degrees removed) of part-U.S. companies. Having worked off-shore, I could easily see how a multinational company could use its UK operations to purchase stuff in Singapore, and for those same goods to ultimately end up in the U.S. without being considered "new" goods and without being taxed as imports. Indeed, it seems incredible to me that any company would ever pay taxes, but that's maybe that's just my cynical side talking.
|
|
Taxes imply some degree of Social Responsibility to the group...or Socialist thinking.
I for one dont see the problem with establishing a taxable income threshold so that the first 30,000 dollars goes un taxed and everything above that is taxed at fifty percent to pay for compulsory medical treatment in order to keep the employment efficiency of the population up - so as not to undermine the economy.
non-imports, purchased overseas by overseas branches of part-U.S. companies, and by overseas proxies (even several degrees removed) of part-U.S. companies. Having worked off-shore, I could easily see how a multinational company could use its UK operations to purchase stuff in Singapore, and for those same goods to ultimately end up in the U.S. without being considered "new" goods and without being taxed as imports. Indeed, it seems incredible to me that any company would ever pay taxes, but that's maybe that's just my cynical side talking.
I agree. This is likely the reality of the situation.
I'm sure something could be done to try to stop it, but the fact is that most multi-national businesses would do everything in their power to avoid paying U.S. taxes, just like they do now. The FairTax plan would just make it a whole lot easier, which is why so many of them are supportive of it.