IRS - American tyranny

[Scataphagos]

Quote from misterno:

I think I am understanding

The reason VAT is supported so much here is because most people here are in high income tax bracket

Keep paying taxes because poor people needs it. You don't need to buy a Benz or a 6 bedroom house. Luxury is waste. Period

If you don't pay these taxes, US wil turn into a 3rd world country. It is the income and property taxes collected from rich people that prevents a big gap between rich and poor in USA.

I lived in a 3rd world country where there is no IRS and no income tax and no property tax and only VAT

That is the worst system EVER.

Also, I don't understand the frustration about tax codes. Why don't you guys use software programs to deal with this?

I always thought you were smarter than this...

The "points" of a national sales tax, primarily, are two... (1) collect consumption tax from tax evaders who don't file or under-report... said to be $200B per year. And (2) What America NEEDS is a tax environment which promotes jobs and growth. And the ONLY thing that does that is a very low tax rate... and the only way to promote THAT is to spread the tax burden as widely as possible.

Nobody is suggesting that lower incomes should get hosed on the deal. All the tax policy writers have to do is exempt certain categories of consumption from the tax... and EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD GET THE SAME EXEMPTION AS ANY OTHER... Otherwise, we're not "America"... we'd be more like France, Venezuela, or Cuba.

If we continue on this same path of "soak the rich" and get more and more citizens onto the dole... who perhaps don't work and certainly don't pay federal income tax.... AMERICA IS DOOMED!

 

[tomdavis]

Quote from misterno:

What kind of logic is this?

You are comparing creating jobs based on waste and luxury to feeding poor people and paying tuition for students.

You are on the wrong side my friend.

A little humanity please

The people who lose their jobs believe that you are on the wrong side. You don't care if autoworkers lose their jobs, or waiters lose their jobs or the ballet teachers lose their jobs. You don't care who suffers as long as you get what you want. A little humanity, please.

Regarding tuition, why should I pay anyone else's tuition? I worked my way through six years of college. Millions of people do it every year. It's called "get off your ass and get a job." Even though I can afford to pay my children's college tuition, they will be expected to have a job. They need to learn that they are not "entitled" to anything they don't work for.

 

[Moneyball]

Quote from misterno:

What kind of logic is this?

You are comparing creating jobs based on waste and luxury to feeding poor people and paying tuition for students.

You are on the wrong side my friend.

A little humanity please

That's one of the fundamental flaws with our economy- over 2/3rds of it comes from consumer spending, and much of that is on "waste and luxury". It's one of the reasons why this "recovery" has been very slow, because people are actually starting to save a little more than before, although it's still not nearly as much as they should. Saving money is good for the individual (in theory anyway), bad for the economy.

Does anyone need "wasteful" luxury items? Probably not, but without them, the economy would be really screwed. They generate several layers of taxes- sales tax on the purchase, income tax and FICA/SS on the employees that work for the companies selling them, income tax on the company profits, and then the same for the suppliers of that company, their suppliers, etc. It's a chain reaction.

Without these things, there would be a lot less tax revenue for the government, and far more people for them to spend it on. To a lesser extent, it's similar to people being up in arms over wall street salaries and bonuses- the amount of tax revenue that major areas like NYC generate from them, not to mention all of the money they spend that is taxed again (and again, and again), is a huge portion of their overall tax receipts. It's probably the only reason why the government hasn't outright mandated them, because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them (too much).

 

[hippie]

Quote from Moneyball:

That's one of the fundamental flaws with our economy- over 2/3rds of it comes from consumer spending, and much of that is on "waste and luxury". It's one of the reasons why this "recovery" has been very slow, because people are actually starting to save a little more than before, although it's still not nearly as much as they should. Saving money is good for the individual (in theory anyway), bad for the economy.

Does anyone need "wasteful" luxury items? Probably not, but without them, the economy would be really screwed. They generate several layers of taxes- sales tax on the purchase, income tax and FICA/SS on the employees that work for the companies selling them, income tax on the company profits, and then the same for the suppliers of that company, their suppliers, etc. It's a chain reaction.

Without these things, there would be a lot less tax revenue for the government, and far more people for them to spend it on. To a lesser extent, it's similar to people being up in arms over wall street salaries and bonuses- the amount of tax revenue that major areas like NYC generate from them, not to mention all of the money they spend that is taxed again (and again, and again), is a huge portion of their overall tax receipts. It's probably the only reason why the government hasn't outright mandated them, because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them (too much).

Wall Street crooks were getting our tax money support. There is a lot more tax-money gifts to them besides the bailout funds.

I have no problem with a company like Google or eBay keeping more of its revenue or give out nice bonus to its staff. There were not bailed by out by our taxes.

 

[Bob111]

Quote from Scataphagos:

I always thought you were smarter than this...

The "points" of a national sales tax, primarily, are two... (1) collect consumption tax from tax evaders who don't file or under-report... said to be $200B per year. And (2) What America NEEDS is a tax environment which promotes jobs and growth. And the ONLY thing that does that is a very low tax rate... and the only way to promote THAT is to spread the tax burden as widely as possible.

Nobody is suggesting that lower incomes should get hosed on the deal. All the tax policy writers have to do is exempt certain categories of consumption from the tax... and EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD GET THE SAME EXEMPTION AS ANY OTHER... Otherwise, we're not "America"... we'd be more like France, Venezuela, or Cuba.

If we continue on this same path of "soak the rich" and get more and more citizens onto the dole... who perhaps don't work and certainly don't pay federal income tax.... AMERICA IS DOOMED!

exactly..

misterno-how many of you ever think-why so many jobs been outsourced? connect the f* n dots..remember clinton's "surplus"?
have you read "bar stool economics" from my post here?tax businesses too much and they will leave the country..and that's what they did..lower the taxes,less government,less regulations,more business friendly environment-and they will come back...maybe..
but so far for last 10 years us gov. doing exact opposite

 

[Mayhem]

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=132568&page=1

George Will: No Luxury in the End
Tax Aimed at Wealthy Had Unintended Consequences for the Poor

Critics say the president's tax proposals favor the rich at the expense of ordinary people.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But a recent event reminded us of the perils of taxing the rich to help common folks.

Twelve days ago, the luxury tax on expensive cars expired. It was the last of the luxury taxes that the first President Bush signed in 1990 as part of the budget agreement in which he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

The agreement was brokered Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, then majority leader. And the luxury tax was supported by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

The luxury tax applied not just to cars, but to jewelry, furs and private planes, and to expensive boats — yachts.

Not So Lucrative

Congress estimated that in 1991 these luxury taxes would rake in $31 million. But the actual sum was just $16.6 million.

Why? Because, to the surprise of no one except tax-raising politicians the luxury taxes caused people to buy less jewelry and fewer expensive cars, planes, and, especially, yachts.

The tax destroyed jobs — an estimated 25,000 of them in the boat-building industry, much of which is in New England — in Sen. Mitchell's Maine and Sen. Kennedy's Massachusetts.

Job losses cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue. So the luxury tax actually cost the government money.

New England's boat-building industry was still so devastated by 1999 that another Kennedy — Ted's son Patrick, a Rhode island congressman — actually proposed a federal subsidy to help rich people buy yachts. He called it, "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax."

Remember this costly farce when you hear talk about helping the common folks by taxing the rich.

 

[stophunter]

Quote from misterno:

What kind of logic is this?

You are comparing creating jobs based on waste and luxury to feeding poor people and paying tuition for students.

You are on the wrong side my friend.

A little humanity please

So... did you move to the U.S. for free healthcare, food, education etc. etc. ....or for the opportunities in a country where through HARD WORK the sky is the limit.

A country where the playing field is (was) equal, there is (was) a working and fair justice system, where contracts (did) mean something, etc., etc..

Of course much of that has changed thanks to your populist notions

 

[hippie]

Quote from stophunter:

So... did you move to the U.S. for free healthcare, food, education etc. etc. ....or for the opportunities in a country where through HARD WORK the sky is the limit.

A country where the playing field is (was) equal, there is (was) a working and fair justice system, where contracts (did) mean something, etc., etc..

Of course much of that has changed thanks to your populist notions

The playing field equal? You are dreaming!

I used to think that a reasonably smart person who works hard has a fighting chance here even if it isn't a level playing field. Not any more.

 

[Moneyball]

Quote from hippie:

Wall Street crooks were getting our tax money support. There is a lot more tax-money gifts to them besides the bailout funds.

I have no problem with a company like Google or eBay keeping more of its revenue or give out nice bonus to its staff. There were not bailed by out by our taxes.

I'm not talking about whether they deserve it or not, just that if they didn't receive the high salaries and bonuses, it would have a negative impact on the economy, just as not "wasting" money on luxury items would.

 

[misterno]

Quote from stophunter:

So... did you move to the U.S. for free healthcare, food, education etc. etc. ....or for the opportunities in a country where through HARD WORK the sky is the limit.

A country where the playing field is (was) equal, there is (was) a working and fair justice system, where contracts (did) mean something, etc., etc..

Of course much of that has changed thanks to your populist notions

I was born in the US raised in a 3rd world country.