You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reforming the US tax code
- Thread starter J-Law
- Start date
Quote from Fractals 'R Us:
...Another terrible practice is the horrible invasion of privacy that goes on at income tax reporting time. A consumption tax, collected by point of sale terminals, would eliminate that entirely.
It's none of the government's damn business how much money a citizen has or makes.
Quote from dcvtss:
Well hopefully you've saved enough money to be able to ride out a year or so of property tax payments and will be able to secure another source of income. If not, you can always sell the house, right? You could also try the ag exempt route for lower rates if it's that big of a concern.
if you fear the government i would think it more sensible to fear a system where the government can seize your property than one where the government can only share in your sucess if you reach a certain threshold.
Quote from Free Thinker:
wrong. many lehman annuity holders were ruined.
If Lehman had a life insurance subsidiary, then the annuity holders would have gotten something, precisely because the way in which assets are held against annuity contracts. As proof of this, go look at what happened to AIG annuity holders vs. other AIG creditors. The AIG life insurance subsidiaries never missed a payment to its annuity holders.
If you mean Lehman bond holders were ruined, please never direct a comment to me again because you don't even understand the difference between a bond and an annuity and I don't have the kind of time necessary to teach these things to you.
Thanks.
Quote from J-Law:
The 60 minutes piece on taxing the rich, the stat that one has to stop & take note of is the following,
"In 1985, the top wealthiest 5% of the US population collectively held $8 trillion. Today, that same demographic holds $40 trillion."
Are you saying wealth should not grow? Or that 6.15% a year is too high? 8 x (1+.0615)^27 = 40.08
just curious
as to taxes, you might want to check
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
top 5%.............paid 27.9%
bottom 20%.....paid 4%
In 1985,
top 5%.....................25.4%
bottom 20%...............9.8%
Quote from piezoe:
I'm curious. Can you think of any specific example of a former government activity that has been completely privatized and the total cost after privatizing was less than the total cost before privatizing --omitting hedonics? I tried, and in every example I could think of the cost increased after privatizing.
I'm not a proponent one way or the other -- and I recognize that hedonics might be an important factor -- but I wonder if this common cost argument has ever been proven in practice.
Well, I was specifically commenting on compensation cost differentials between the public and private sector. In some anecdotal instances I've heard of regarding privatization, the entity which takes over the service ends up investing capital up-front to improve overall service levels, so comparing the cost after those capital investments to the cost before wouldn't be apples-to-apples, but if the compensation differential were true, at least labor cost as a proportion of overall cost would be lower.
One thing I'm thinking of is privatized water services, where the private entity installed lots of new pipes and filters to improve overall water delivery and quality. You'd have to account for that capital outlay in pricing the new water rates. Now, could companies overstate how much capital they outlay and charge more than they deserved to get? Yes, that's entirely possible, but those rates are reviewed by political appointees before approval and the companies have to be pretty transparent about the drivers of the rate increase request. Even if the cost were higher, in this case, I don't consider that "hedonics" because actual capital was outlaid for improvements, which is not as subjective as the "hedonics" calculation is.
Quote from arbtrader:
Are you saying wealth should not grow? Or that 6.15% a year is too high? 8 x (1+.0615)^27 = 40.08
just curious
as to taxes, you might want to check
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
top 5%.............paid 27.9%
bottom 20%.....paid 4%
In 1985,
top 5%.....................25.4%
bottom 20%...............9.8%
It is very easy to get confused and misled because of all the different kind of taxes paid by U.S. citizens. I assume those numbers above are for income tax but what is in the denominator? Is it AGI? Total of all kinds of taxes paid as a percent of income tends to be highest at the lowest levels of income, and some of these folks pay no income tax at all -- it's all refunded..
Politicians without the privilege of ear marks and granting beneficial treatment to donors are powerless.
Any tax reform will be contingent on their continued ability to wield power and influence. Our Tax code documents many bribes paid to influence laws.
Not sure how amazon making a donation and receiving a sales tax or federal tax break is not construed as a bribe and kickback scheme.
Any tax reform will be contingent on their continued ability to wield power and influence. Our Tax code documents many bribes paid to influence laws.
Not sure how amazon making a donation and receiving a sales tax or federal tax break is not construed as a bribe and kickback scheme.
i seeyou are not as smart as you think you are. what do you do sucker people into annuities for a living?Quote from logic_man:
If Lehman had a life insurance subsidiary, then the annuity holders would have gotten something, precisely because the way in which assets are held against annuity contracts. As proof of this, go look at what happened to AIG annuity holders vs. other AIG creditors. The AIG life insurance subsidiaries never missed a payment to its annuity holders.
If you mean Lehman bond holders were ruined, please never direct a comment to me again because you don't even understand the difference between a bond and an annuity and I don't have the kind of time necessary to teach these things to you.
Thanks.
Quote from Free Thinker:
if you fear the government i would think it more sensible to fear a system where the government can seize your property than one where the government can only share in your sucess if you reach a certain threshold.
Because they can't seize your property for non-payment of income tax? Clearly we don't agree on this, I've lived in both types of states and for my personal situation I vastly prefer no income tax, if you feel the other way you should probably move.
Keep in mind also that the "threshold" of success seems to creep ever downward and the government's share only grows in an income tax model.