Reply With Quote
I'd say that plan backfired spectacuarly if CEOs can get golden parachutes after severely screwing up their businesses.
nvm
I'd say that plan backfired spectacuarly if CEOs can get golden parachutes after severely screwing up their businesses.
What about a car? Gas?
SHould I be taxed for buying a used car? what about selling your car?
exactly, SnC can see the unending complexity of such an approach.
Last edited by Drachen; 04-13-2012 at 08:51 AM.
I don't appreciate the word even. BTW I say no to double taxation.
Sounds like a good plan to get rid of income tax and replace it with sales tax. We need a more nepotistic society with spoiled children like Paris Hilton.
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/con...oys/index.html
OK, you caught me in a mistake.
I missed the part of his plan that includes the 12.5% VAT. However, I don't want a VAT as it applies tax at each process. That hurts manufacturing. One way of making our manufacturing more compe ive is to remove such taxation. Tax only at the point of sales, and allow productivity to go untaxed. This will help create more manufacturing jobs that are normally family level wage jobs.
No . That made it sound like he was slamming you.
It seems to me, you tax the new car, but not the used one. you can try to cloud the issue with details all you want. No matter what change could be made, someone will not be happy.
Yeah its okay to hurt the consumer but not good ole manufacturing companies. ing rube. All hail your corporate overlords. I imagine if this country was occupied by a foreign power you would go the way of the Vichy.
good ol WC, check-box predictable, just like PussyEater, VAT on Human-Americans at retail is fine, but don't ever put VAT on Corporate-Americans at wholesale.
You don't get it, do you?
All taxing the producers do is make them less compe ive in the overseas markets. The consumer ends up paying the tax in the end, with higher prices. No tax means lower retail.
Yes I know, you will claim they will keep more in profits. I say bull . If they didn't have to compete in the marketplace, then they could charge what ever they want anyway. Right?
I kept reading your sentence incorrectly. I am not being grammar police, I just read it as saying that you don't appreciate the word "complexity" or something. (i.e. I don't appreciate the word, even. instead of: I don't appreciate the word "even".) I know the former is a strange way to talk, but I read that sentence probably 10 times and for some reason kept reading it that way. (until just now)
Anyway, I put it in there because the two of you agree on many (not all, but many things) didn't mean to offend you, consider it stricken. I guess I can understand because many board republicans continually attribute qualities, positions, or thought processes to me that I don't share with others that they lump me in with...
irony alert
Even Drachen apologizes occasionally.
happens across the board. the jumping to conclusions disease is endemic on this board.
in principle it's easy to ask posters can what they are, think, believe and will defend, but in practice this very seldom happens.
LOL, well I generally try to treat everyone with respect and go to lengths to stay away from being insulting. I have even typed out entire posts then erased them because upon rereading them I realized that it was a long drawn out way of putting someone down. I like conversation, and believe it or not, I learn about a lot of cool stuff from this place. I like getting different perspectives and have changed my mind about issues based on conversation here (granted they were usually minor ones).Even Drachen apologizes occasionally.
There is only one poster that I allow myself a little leeway for and it is WC. I don't get anywhere near as bad as some other posters, and I tried for a long time to give him the benefit of the doubt, appeal to his senses, etc, but he is the most ridiculous poster here (at least b_d, cosmored, etc are consistent unlike WC, the libertarian who wants to assign the duty of climbing up into my balls to the government.)
Everyone else seems pretty much ok and I try to act in the same manner even if they don't. So, if I unintentionally don't act decent, and I get called on it, I will probably apologize.
GOP nominee Mitt Romney has a plan that would reduce statutory tax rates by 20 percent. But he has said he would eliminate enough deductions and loopholes to equal current federal revenues and also ensure that the wealthy pay the same percentage of total taxes as they pay now.
But the Tax Policy Center recently concluded that Romney’s proposal is mathematically impossible even if the mortgage interest deduction and all other deductions are abolished. Romney reacted angrily to the study, denying he would touch the mortgage interest deduction for middle-income taxpayers. But at the same time, he has steadfastly refused to say what deductions he would in fact get rid of to pay for his plan.
This week, writers of the Republican platform in Tampa dipped their toe in the tax reform water by excising a plank in previous platforms defending the mortgage interest deduction. Under pressure from groups such as the National Association of Home Builders, language was quickly reinserted to protect the deduction.
The fact is that if fundamental tax reform is on the table, then so is the mortgage interest deduction. Making an exception for it automatically becomes the best possible argument for keeping the next most popular deduction and so on – until we are right back where we started. The fact that Republicans backtracked on mortgage interest the moment there was pushback from special interests doesn’t bode well for tax reform even if Mr. Romney wins.
Prediction: any tax reform will enrich the 1%, and suck wealth out of the 99%, and cut the safety net deeper.
Mortgage interest deduction, and employer-paid health insurance as taxable benefit will be on the table.
Employer-paid health insurance is nothing but employers skimming your salary and passing it directly to health insurers. The employer counts it a a business expense, the employee get the "free lunch" financial benefit tax free, and for-profit insurer pass the employees' salaries to (foreign) investors and over-paid management.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-02-2013 at 11:37 AM.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...n-embrace.htmlHere’s some holiday cheer: 120 million American families no longer have to file income tax returns; the top individual rate is lowered by 20 percent; the top corporate rate is cut by more than half; the government gets the same amount of revenue; and the tax system is slightly more progressive.
OK, it’s not a free lunch. It would be accompanied by a 12.9 percent value-added levy, which critics like to call a national sales tax.
The Graetz initiative offers something for both sides. It starts, he suggests, with countering the observation once offered by former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers that liberals fear a value-added tax because it’s regressive and conservatives fear it because it’s a money machine. Graetz’s measure overcomes both objections.
The professor argues that his VAT would make business more compe ive and create jobs; it would be levied on imports, not exports. It would bring U.S. tax policy more in line with the 160 other countries, including every developed one, that have a VAT.
Graetz addresses the regressivity of most sales taxes, not by exempting food, drugs and other necessities as most of the older European systems do, but with a system of credits and offsets that follows the more modern models of Singapore and New Zealand.
He provides a payroll tax cut and expanded child-care credits focused on low- and moderate-income workers. Families making less than $100,000 would be exempt from any income tax that is progressive, with a top rate of 31 percent on incomes more than $600,000. (The top corporate rate would be 15 percent.)
Those on fixed incomes, such as senior citizens, he argues, would be protected from higher prices induced by the tax by cost-of-living adjustments.
The Tax Policy Center found that his proposal succeeds in raising the same amount of revenue as current law. If revenue is to be part of any longer-term deficit reduction, Graetz observes, the value-added tax or the income taxes could be tweaked. “Actually, this would put us in a better situation to address the fiscal crunch down the road,” he says.
One of the many reasons the Baucus-Camp effort is doomed is that the differences between today and 1986 are much greater than any similarities. Almost three decades ago, lower individual rates were funded by higher taxes on capital gains and corporations. “There is no such pot of gold today,” Graetz says.
“There is no such pot of gold today,”
VRWC/1%/corporate-purchased govt policies made that pot of gold disappear(into their own pockets), and govt policy can make it reappear.
"U.S. tax policy more in line with the 160 other countries, including every developed one, that have a VAT."
chauvinist politicians would NEVER accept the USA being like 160 other nations, because God has decided the USA is the shining superior exceptional nation.
All these tax reform proposals are purely academic because Congress is deeply polarized, totally constipated, incapable of any major legislation, or even minor legislation. The US tax code is rigged to an incredible complexity to enrich corps, wealthy, and protect their riches.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-02-2013 at 08:11 PM.
academic until it happens. all policy starts as just talk.
ain't gonna happen. the current system is rigged into a complex rigidity.
these tax reforms always sell themselves as EVERYBODY WINS!, WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE and VOTE FOR?, and also often where total tax take is down, while current tax take is already too low
One would hope so.
Even if the end result does not change one penny in total Federal revenue, the economy would be better off. Accountants and tax preparers would lose out, but the amount of time wasted on preparing and QC'ing, and auditing would drop to almost nothing.
Although I try not to be overly cynical, I think boutons has it right.
Far to many interests have far too many gimmies. "complex rigidity" is an understatement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
