Seems the new Tax bill has a few surprizes in it.

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by Boxite

That's not true. Poor pay a disproportionate share of their income for necessities while rich and executives have corporations supply them with luxuries that are deducted.

With a consumption tax, there are no deductions. The rich pay much more because they spend more.

If all the artwork in exec offices were taxed as the property it is...there'd be no need for individual income taxes below middle class.

With a consumption tax, that artwork would be taxed at the time of purchase.
No need for income taxes below middle class? Didn't you just say everyone needs to pay their "fair share"?

Also, you surely agree that corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them. If you tax a corporation at 40%, it just makes the cost of their product higher, you pay their taxes when you buy that product.

Venezuela ran out all the private corporations. How's that working out?

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by Boxite

If all the artwork in exec offices were taxed as the property it is...there'd be no need for individual income taxes below middle class.

That's just silly.
As a matter of fact, If you taxed all millionaires at 100%, you could run the government for something like 111 days.
So, the solution is we either need more millionaires or we need to drastically shrink the federal government.

[rideair]

Actually, it’s very easy to figure out ones “fair-share” in regards to the Federal Budget, but this will “NEVER” be done.

All one has to do is the following, take the total “Federal Budget” which for 2018 is “$4.094 Trillion Dollars”, divided by the “Total Population” of 323.1 “Million People”, you will come up with a number for each person of $12,670.99. So, the math becomes very easy at that point, a single person above the age of 18, is on the hook for $12,670.99 or that number “PLUS” the number of children under their care. A family of four would have a tax bill of $50,683.96, a married couple $25,341.98, etc....

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by rideair

Actually, it’s very easy to figure out ones “fair-share” in regards to the Federal Budget, but this will “NEVER” be done.

All one has to do is the following, take the total “Federal Budget” which for 2018 is “$4.094 Trillion Dollars”, divided by the “Total Population” of 323.1 “Million People”, you will come up with a number for each person of $12,670.99. So, the math becomes very easy at that point, a single person above the age of 18, is on the hook for $12,670.99 or that number “PLUS” the number of children under their care. A family of four would have a tax bill of $50,683.96, a married couple $25,341.98, etc....

Taxes can be based on how much the government spends, as long as the same formula determines my salary.

[overlander63]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Taxes can be based on how much the government spends, as long as the same formula determines my salary.

No, taxes need to be based on how much the taxpayers earn, not how much the government spends.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by overlander63

No, taxes need to be based on how much the taxpayers earn, not how much the government spends.

It was sarcasm. The tax cut was a long time coming. Government needs to go on a diet.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

Actually, the only fair tax is a consumption tax. Everyone pays, there are no "loopholes" that favor a certain group.
...

Real estate taxes have the same effect. Nobody escapes them, there are no loopholes, and no group is favored. You own, you pay, and the same percentage applies to everyone.

Many people are opposed to high real estate taxes on general principle (the idea of paying an annual tax on something already owned). But functionally, they can be a lesser of evils. Texas has no state income tax, but what we have instead is sky-high real estate taxes that largely prevented a housing bubble from happening here. Texas was the anchor that kept the rest of the country from completely unraveling during the subprime mortgage crisis.

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by rideair

All one has to do is the following, take the total “Federal Budget” which for 2018 is “$4.094 Trillion Dollars”, divided by the “Total Population” of 323.1 “Million People”, you will come up with a number for each person of $12,670.99.

I did that but you're forgetting corporate taxes which should make that number smaller.
Every time I tried to guestimate my "Fair Share" I found that I was overpaying, and the so called poor paid nothing.
That's not fair.
Besides, if one was to calculate "use of government services"; I've never been arrested, in the court system, nor do I have kids in school, or the fire department or EMS on a first name basis. Nope, never used the prison system, or called 911. I have health insurance, and always have. I paid into SS and Medicare like I was required.
I'm not using my share of services that I'm overpaying for.

Besides, it's a little known fact that if one feels the need to pay more, the IRS will happily accept an overpayment. I have yet to find a person that promotes higher taxes who has sent in an extra dime.

It's a fact that when tax rates are reduced, the money flowing into the feds increases. You have more taxpayers and fewer loopholes.
However, a former presidential candidate was asked, "If raising taxes caused revenue to drop, would you still do it?" He answered, "Yes, because it's the right thing to do."
Think about it.

[Boxite]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

With a consumption tax, there are no deductions. The rich pay much more because they spend more.
With a consumption tax, that artwork would be taxed at the time of purchase.
No need for income taxes below middle class? Didn't you just say everyone needs to pay their "fair share"?..

I thought you were promoting a "consumption tax" in lieu of income taxes. My comment was addressed toward a blended system of the two. A consumer already pays sales taxes. The problem I saw was/is the poor pay sales taxes on a larger percentage of their income, while it's exempted from re-sellers like corporations. That's why a simple solution such as a nat'l sales-tax or a "flat tax" is virtually un-American. Only a graduated tax can prevent what happened to Europe from repeating here.
Yes, if I make a good living... I owe taxes to pay for what makes it good here... What I mean by "fair share"... is richer incomes should pay more for their benefit. That certainly hasn't removed any of them from the rich-category. We have enough Leona Helmsley s in the world. " In 1985, during those proceedings, the contractors revealed that most of their work was being illegally billed to the Helmsleys' hotels as business expenses." Leona Helmsley ... "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley

[EZTOO]

Wow, Paul must've lived in loan "sin" prior to 20 years ago, today that is no excuse!! Get off your high horse... Even Airteamers put their pants on one leg at a time...

[carl2591]

I, as well, have never been arrested, called 911 for a personal event, I did have kids in school, have not used the fire dept ? EMS to my house for an event, or used the prison system..

But these services were AVAILABLE to you if you needed them. What if you did not "pay" your local tax and you house caught on fire, who you gonna call, your neighbor??. What if someone runs a redlight and hits your car, who is going to come out to try and safe you,, local EMS.. (this was tried in one area i believe reading some years ago and it was a BIG lawsuit where only the lawyers came out ahead)

It not a matter of what "you" use or what you pay it all about the services are available for all, and yes some do use EMS etc more than others.

It is and will alway be the universal argument of who uses what and who pay what. When you have a government that allows folks like wells fargo to continue in business and not one person thus far has gone to jail for all the fake accounts they open, then "fairness" is something we, THE USA, will never experience.

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

I did that but you're forgetting corporate taxes which should make that number smaller.
Every time I tried to guestimate my "Fair Share" I found that I was overpaying, and the so called poor paid nothing.
That's not fair.
Besides, if one was to calculate "use of government services"; I've never been arrested, in the court system, nor do I have kids in school, or the fire department or EMS on a first name basis. Nope, never used the prison system, or called 911. I have health insurance, and always have. I paid into SS and Medicare like I was required.
I'm not using my share of services that I'm overpaying for.

Besides, it's a little known fact that if one feels the need to pay more, the IRS will happily accept an overpayment. I have yet to find a person that promotes higher taxes who has sent in an extra dime.

It's a fact that when tax rates are reduced, the money flowing into the feds increases. You have more taxpayers and fewer loopholes.
However, a former presidential candidate was asked, "If raising taxes caused revenue to drop, would you still do it?" He answered, "Yes, because it's the right thing to do."
Think about it.

[Zil]

Everyone that lives in the USA benefits from the services provided by the taxes paid. Every student educated helps everyone else, even if one has no children. Every fire department, police department, court system, hospital, EMS, and on, lowers ones insurance costs. Everyone with an Airstream rides on roads paved and maintained by the government.

[billrector]

Originally Posted by Zil

Everyone that lives in the USA benefits from the services provided by the taxes paid. Every student educated helps everyone else, even if one has no children. Every fire department, police department, court system, hospital, EMS, and on, lowers ones insurance costs. Everyone with an Airstream rides on roads paved and maintained by the government.

With those thoughts in mind, then shouldn't EVERYONE pay something for those services? Currently, almost half of our country pays nothing. If you pay nothing, do you really care what the government spends?

[wbrisett]

Originally Posted by rideair

I don't really understand the math of having to borrow money to buy a trailer, so don't really understand having the need to write-off the interest.

When everything is said and done, a current Airstream is nearly 100K. While some people have access to that, a lot of people don't. Personally, for me the math was simple. Keep my money in investments where it's making more than the interest on the loan I took out for the Airstream. For some people, the cost of the interest is fine because they derive pleasure from their purchase, and that's OK too, it's all in how people want to spend their money. There's no right or wrong way, because it's a personal choice. I'm in a position in my life where I have no other bills, and I'm sure there are a few others, but we're the odd men out in this. People finance houses, cars, and yes, trailers. Nothing wrong with it as long as they accept the consequences of doing that and banks are willing to give the money.

-Wayne

[Tomzstream]

The next BIG hit to the Federal Budget will be the infrastructure bill. What do you think of the need to pay as you go and where should it come from? Highway taxes are hard to assess, unless you boost the federal tax on gas and diesel. Some states have tried USE taxes based on mileage, but how do you assess trailers? Some have tried an annual fee for vehicles like EVs that do not pay their "share" of gasoline tax.

[billrector]

Originally Posted by Tomzstream

The next BIG hit to the Federal Budget will be the infrastructure bill. What do you think of the need to pay as you go and where should it come from? Highway taxes are hard to assess, unless you boost the federal tax on gas and diesel. Some states have tried USE taxes based on mileage, but how do you assess trailers? Some have tried an annual fee for vehicles like EVs that do not pay their "share" of gasoline tax.

The problem with our government is that they create sources of income to work on things like roads and bridges (gas tax, tolls, etc.) and then spend it on other things. Then, when its time to spend money on things like roads and bridges, the money is not there and they decide to create new sources of income.....and the cycle continues until there is just no more money!

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by Tomzstream

The next BIG hit to the Federal Budget will be the infrastructure bill. What do you think of the need to pay as you go and where should it come from? Highway taxes are hard to assess, unless you boost the federal tax on gas and diesel. Some states have tried USE taxes based on mileage, but how do you assess trailers? Some have tried an annual fee for vehicles like EVs that do not pay their "share" of gasoline tax.

Simple. A tax based on mileage and weight of the vehicle. The technology already exists.

[wbrisett]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Simple. A tax based on mileage and weight of the vehicle. The technology already exists.

Oregon is currently trying this method out. It bares watching and seeing how well this works for them.

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by carl2591

I, as well, have never been arrested, called 911 for a personal event, I did have kids in school, have not used the fire dept ? EMS to my house for an event, or used the prison system..

But these services were AVAILABLE to you if you needed them.

Not really. If everyone called the police at the same time there wouldn't be anywhere near enough cops.
Any cop will tell you there are ten times as many cops in the "poor" neighborhoods than in the others.

Originally Posted by Boxite

I thought you were promoting a "consumption tax" in lieu of income taxes.

I was.

My comment was addressed toward a blended system of the two.

The worst of all possible worlds.

A consumer already pays sales taxes.

Those are state taxes. A "VAT" tax must be to REPLACE the federal income tax, which is inherently unfair.

The problem I saw was/is the poor pay sales taxes on a larger percentage of their income

I hear that a lot. But I don't get it. If I make a $1 million I'd pay more than the guy who makes $100 K. Remember Warren Buffett who said he paid a lower rate than his secretary? (as if he ever planned on paying more?)First, the "rate" is because she had income and he had dividends. He knows that. My solution was to reduce her rate if it made him feel bad.

That's why a simple solution such as a nat'l sales-tax or a "flat tax" is virtually un-American.

Played the Un-American card, eh? It's un-American to be against almost every risky scheme these days. Need I make a list?

Originally Posted by Tomzstream

The next BIG hit to the Federal Budget will be the infrastructure bill. What do you think of the need to pay as you go and where should it come from?

Wait, what? Where were you during the last eight years? Remember the "stimulus"? A trillion dollars marked to provide "shovel ready jobs", overseen by "Joe, nothing get past him." and intended(?) to fix the infrastructure.
The infrastructure problem was solved!

[sbowman]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

Not really. If everyone called the police at the same time there wouldn't be anywhere near enough cops.
Any cop will tell you there are ten times as many cops in the "poor" neighborhoods than in the others.

I was.

The worst of all possible worlds.

Those are state taxes. A "VAT" tax must be to REPLACE the federal income tax, which is inherently unfair.
I hear that a lot. But I don't get it. If I make a $1 million I'd pay more than the guy who makes $100 K. Remember Warren Buffett who said he paid a lower rate than his secretary? (as if he ever planned on paying more?)First, the "rate" is because she had income and he had dividends. He knows that. My solution was to reduce her rate if it made him feel bad.

Played the Un-American card, eh? It's un-American to be against almost every risky scheme these days. Need I make a list?

Wait, what? Where were you during the last eight years? Remember the "stimulus"? A trillion dollars marked to provide "shovel ready jobs", overseen by "Joe, nothing get past him." and intended(?) to fix the infrastructure.
The infrastructure problem was solved!

What is best for all Americans? What is the root of our problems? Couple thoughts. No one likes to pay taxes and/or taxes on top of taxes. Looking back at the birth of this country. People came to this country to start a life to have freedom from oppression, paying taxes to the so called claimed rulers, and religion of choice to practice w/o persecution.

America has become what our fore fathers left behind. We the people have permitted this by thinking what is best for me and and not what is best for all. Pretty simple. I have no doubt others will disagree w/what I have said, have at it. People handle power and money in two ways, being humble or being greedy.

What is the root of our problems, I can not answer for others. My humble opinion, the media (AKA fake news), majority of the people trying to operate our Government (local & Fed), and the Globalist. They have sold their soles and they are trying to sell our soles.

What is best for all Americans, good question. Looking back, whether or not you agree Ronald Reagan was best for all Americans, the facts support this. It took a little over 25 years for the greedy to get us where are today after Reagan. I am waiting to see what Trump does. Currently to date it appears Trump will MAGA and lets hope he can and does and we never find ourselves in this mess again. I do not care what party you belong to. The "Swamp Rats" are on all sides. Time to clean house for good.

Safe Travels