Yoorghis@Jurgis.net wrote in news:jmm8e85131v6g69n8oe09d63m1fcivn9dk@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:44:08 +0000 (UTC), Matt <matttelles@sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote in news:c9b9f95a-5c37-4b1e-829d-39a2e9b114d7
>>@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 12:35?am, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:17:21 -0800, In article <wr85r0ehb3jp
>>>> $.349ldn14gd11$....@40tude.net>, Mel...@Mordor.com says...
>>>>
>>>> > He's apparently chosen to increase taxes on everyone.
>>>>
>>>> I have too. EVERYONE should pay a fair share. Let's all pay a flat
>>rate
>>>> and get this shit over with.
>>>
>>> Flat rate. Another right wingnut math failure. What's a flat rate,
>>> stupid? 10%? That would be about half of what Warren Buffet
already
>>> pays. Where's the fairness in that when he gets an income boost out
>>> of that rate? What's 10% to him? Nothing. What's 10% to someone
>>> making $20,000 per year? Not an income boost but an income
>>> subtraction of $2,000. And he needs $22,000 a year just to break
>>> even, so already he's $4,000 short, including the 10% you want to
>>> subtract from him. Nothing fair about that flat tax at all between
>>> the two. One gets to go on like nothing hit him, the other plunges
>>> into debt. Stupid brain-dead right wingnut math failure that you
are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>14% is the break even point in almost all models, and that number only
>>goes up if you allow for deductions of any sort (such as mortgage
>>interest). The notion of "flat rate" is equally absurd, since it
doesn't
>>take into account all transactions or income, only those that are
>>listed.
>>
>>The other alternative that comes up regularly is a national sales tax
on
>>ALL transactions. It isn't a bad idea, really, if you replace the
income
>>tax with sales tax. The problem is, I don't trust our government not
to
>>raise it, and with a VAT-style tax, you wouldn't even know it.
>>
>>Matt
>
> What about "returning" to the days of almost confiscatory tax rates on
> wealth/business/industry---when employment was the highest, expansion
> the best, innovation, job creation, and "general welfare" was at it's
> highest?
The reality was, almost nobody paid those rates, just as almost nobody
pays top rates today.
>
> As I recall---no millionaire ever went broke, and very few industries
> or businesses were shut down unless incompetent management failed. Yet
> we created massive infrastructre (now crumbling), Education
> possibilities for all classes, and techinical achievements galore.
>
> Of course that would require having the same kind of tax code
> incentives and regulations, enforcement and understanding of domestic
> policies from politicians.
The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is that the tax
code itself is inherently messed up. Too many special interests, too
many loopholes, too many everything. Fixing it will probably not cost
the average American consumer a cent, but it would certainly cause a lot
of businesses to pay more. As we've seen in both the US and UK, lowering
the tax rates is great for corporate profits, but does absolutely
nothing for either revenues to the government or jobs.
Corporations should be taxed on income, less that which they pay out in
salaries, capped at a given amount (to avoid having executives simply
paid billions to remove any profit). That's fair, it encourages them to
hire, and it will do a lot for the economy.
Sadly, nobody will look at rational choices anymore.
Matt
>