News European Court Ruling on UK Taxation Laws

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm in favor of EVERYONE paying a little more IF the spending is cut (everyone take a little less also) - no more EITC either.

I'm in favor of everyone paying a share as well. Not so much to increase the federal income, as to change the political voting landscape back to one of "leaving money in your pocket" rather than "putting money in your pocket."

 

[Proton Soup]

I think you're using the word socialist (and commie) rather differently than most. It's socialist for government to use force to restrict or interfere (as a third party) with private transactions, not for government to exercise control over its own transactions, that it is a party to. For military employment, or any government employment, government is a party to the transaction, not an interfering third party.

And (assuming a volunteer force) the terms of the contract are mutually agreed on by all parties to it, which makes it decidedly non-socialist.

i find this very interesting. because it implies that nationalizing military contractors is not socialist. and neither would be nationalizing companies that provide any other government services. i wonder how much of the economy that would account for? quite a bit of construction and manufacturing to be sure. even automobile manufacturing.

I've split this off to its own thread.

Is the tax system popular? It's fair to say its more popular with the 47% of the population that's paying no income tax than the 1% of the population that pays 35% of the income tax.

i find all of this pointless and misleading. it's a big distraction to set up artificial feuds among the sheep. in the end, all the tax is paid by the end consumer. for that 1% to make enough profit to pay 35% of the tax, they must add enough to the price of goods to extract that cost from the consumer.

i think our individual income tax system is the most silly, asinine, inefficient means of collecting revenue we could have devised. individuals are not CPAs, and not equipped for it. however, businesses are. they already have specialists in place because their size requires it. we should consider moving all revenue to one place. and maybe you would even consider not taxing businesses that only provide services (that would also account for a lot of "individuals" who are also a business). rather, just hit people where they live and tax them for the products they consume. sure, rich and poor alike have to eat, but so what? the rich consume more. much more. the system would still be progressive. and to avoid tax, the rich could consume less and invest more, creating jobs. and if you're a "greenie", what is more green than a system that discourages waste?

 

[mheslep]

I like the idea of completely replacing the individual federal income tax with a direct federal tax on the state governments, so that the federal government only taxes the individual indirectly, as opposed to the other way around the way as it is now. This should have the effect of greatly simplifying the tax code as seen by an individual, and allowing the abolition of the IRS while slightly expanding state collection staff. In general the federal government should be relegated to performing tasks that only it can do, and leaving the rest to the states and local governments.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YzVlNjA3NzE5ODk0NWYwYWY2NGU4YjM1ZDBiMjk5MTI=

 

[Al68]

i find this very interesting. because it implies that nationalizing military contractors is not socialist. and neither would be nationalizing companies that provide any other government services.

Assuming you're referring to government hiring people directly instead of contracting with a private company, that's right. Government choosing not to do business with a private company isn't socialist.

If a private company's only customer is government, they would effectively cease to exist, and their employees may end up working for government instead of the private company.

But in that case, no force is used by government to restrict or interfere with any private transaction. It's no different from me deciding to grow my own tomatoes instead of buying them from the grocer.

 

[cobalt124]

I'm in favor of everyone paying a share as well. Not so much to increase the federal income, as to change the political voting landscape back to one of "leaving money in your pocket" rather than "putting money in your pocket."

(Bold mine). This is one of the things I was trying to get at. Why isn't the system more like that, surely it would be simpler and cheaper to implement.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

(Bold mine). This is one of the things I was trying to get at. Why isn't the system more like that, surely it would be simpler and cheaper to implement.

It's hard to talk 100 million people into paying taxes when they're used to not paying any. Ironically, they're fine with everyone else paying taxes for them though...

 

[Jasongreat]

I like the idea of completely replacing the individual federal income tax with a direct federal tax on the state governments, so that the federal government only taxes the individual indirectly, as opposed to the other way around the way as it is now. This should have the effect of greatly simplifying the tax code as seen by an individual, and allowing the abolition of the IRS while slightly expanding state collection staff. In general the federal government should be relegated to performing tasks that only it can do, and leaving the rest to the states and local governments.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YzVlNjA3NzE5ODk0NWYwYWY2NGU4YjM1ZDBiMjk5MTI=

Whats the difference of taxing the individual through the federal government, or taxing the individual through the states for the federal government? I think a national sales tax would be the best. If one chooses to buy stuff, one chooses to pay taxes on that stuff. It is basically the way the US government was originally financed, through tariffs, with no individual tax per se.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Whats the difference of taxing the individual through the federal government, or taxing the individual through the states for the federal government?

It makes the federal government more responsive to the states. Whether this a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

 

[WhoWee]

It makes the federal government more responsive to the states. Whether this a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

If the states were able to make the Feds more accountable - instead of Federal mandates telling the states what to do - it might be a good thing? The problem is accountability - nobody (Dem or Repub) owns the problem of deficit spending.

On the morning news I heard a Democrat strategist comment that seats were lost in the House due to legislative gridlock (?) - apparently the Dems couldn't pass any legislation and were punished for it?

How would you feel if PF leaders decided to make a giant advertising push to increase membership, paid consultants to revise the look of PF, and hired hundreds of workers to monitor threads - then notify all members of a need for more revenues - perhaps a pay per post fee - and instead of a discount for the most active members - the rate would increase with activity?

 

[mheslep]

It makes the federal government more responsive to the states. Whether this a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

Exactly. And for the individual, he/she does not have to deal with a leviathon one size fits all nation wide tax system. The state income tax systems are, visibly, simpler for the individual.

 

[WhoWee]

Exactly. And for the individual, he/she does not have to deal with a leviathon one size fits all nation wide tax system. The state income tax systems are, visibly, simpler for the individual.

Again until Federal mandates (like Medicaid) force policy.

 

[Proton Soup]

Again until Federal mandates (like Medicaid) force policy.

just go back to the old system, with states choosing the senators to send to washington.

 

[Al68]

They're definitely not cheap, but it's pretty silly to list their fees in terms of "APR", for a loan for just a few days. Very little of that fee is analogous to interest.

Including lender fees in a quoted APR just doesn't make sense when the lender fee is the bulk of the total.

You might be right, but it's a fair comparison if only to show what the fees are compared to a credit card or personal bank loan. Ironically, these loans should be relatively low-risk to the company because they demand collateral for the loan (hence the term, "car title loan") but the net interest rate charged rivals a loan shark...

Oops, I thought we were talking about payday loans. That's what I was referring to as silly to talk about the fee in terms of APR. It does make sense to talk about APR of a car title loan, assuming it's for a relatively longer term, like 6 months or a year.

 

[Al68]

I think a national sales tax would be the best. If one chooses to buy stuff, one chooses to pay taxes on that stuff. It is basically the way the US government was originally financed, through tariffs, with no individual tax per se.

I agree that a national sales tax would be better, but it would still be involuntary. Would you say that if one chooses to work for money then they are choosing to pay taxes on it?

The advantage would be (personal finances) privacy restoration (to a degree) and the inability of government to "divide and conquer" since we would all be in the same boat. And it would be hard for politicians to deceive people about how much taxes are paid by different categories of people.

 

[turbo]

I agree that a national sales tax would be better, but it would still be involuntary. Would you say that if one chooses to work for money then they are choosing to pay taxes on it?

The advantage would be (personal finances) privacy restoration (to a degree) and the inability of government to "divide and conquer" since we would all be in the same boat. And it would be hard for politicians to deceive people about how much taxes are paid by different categories of people.

This is regression in the extreme, though. Poorer people have to spend their pay and they would pay almost all of a national sales tax. Rich people don't have to spend their income and expose themselves to taxation. Even better for them, much of their income is not categorized as income.

 

[WhoWee]

This is regression in the extreme, though. Poorer people have to spend their pay and they would pay almost all of a national sales tax. Rich people don't have to spend their income and expose themselves to taxation. Even better for them, much of their income is not categorized as income.

That would depend upon the definition of taxable items - wouldn't it? If everything was taxed - utilities, raw materials, equipment, building materials, parts, and services then wouldn't it be possible that business (including the largest corporations) might carry the load?

A real world example - for a small business:

If the national sales tax was an even 10%, a small (family owned) sandwich shop franchise with revenues of $300,000 per year and COGS ($120,000) 40%, utilities of $25,000, franchise costs $30,000 (5% franchise fees and 5% marketing marketing) 10% and business/professional services of $10,000 = $185,000 in taxable purchases @ 10% = $18,500 in tax due. The same shop (after labor $60,000 and rent/mortgage $35,000) would have a pre-tax income of $20,000 under current rules (before depreciation and healthcare or other benefits) - less the $18,500 in national sales tax = $1,500 in annual income. Hopefully, the owner was included as an hourly worker in the payroll figure and they're building equity in the real estate.

 

[Jasongreat]

I agree that a national sales tax would be better, but it would still be involuntary. Would you say that if one chooses to work for money then they are choosing to pay taxes on it?

The advantage would be (personal finances) privacy restoration (to a degree) and the inability of government to "divide and conquer" since we would all be in the same boat. And it would be hard for politicians to deceive people about how much taxes are paid by different categories of people.

Yes I would say that paying income taxes is voluntary, I routinely turn down overtime since more of that money goes to taxes than goes to my pocket. I think that taxes should come from our discretionary money though, not out of our living expenses. People should be able to keep all their income and only be taxed on their profits(money not used to survive), just like corporations do now. We could set up a savings percentage so one could set aside 10%of their income per year tax free, they could spend all they needed to on living expenses and what ever they have left over would be the taxable amount. Which imo would stimulate independence as well as the economy and personal savings, the more people spend to live and keep their savings near the limit the more of the value of their labor they keep. I feel like a national sales tax could be set up on only certain items like things people want but don't neccessarily need. One of the big advantages of a system set up like this is all our taxes would be placed in one spot, if the government grew too much so the tax rate got too high the people would feel it right away, instead of allowing governments to bleed us through a thousand cuts to where very few know how much they really pay in taxes each year. Also, if people were incentivized to save we wouldn't need all the social programs we are now inundated with and which are bankrupting our country.

 

[turbo]

Let's look at "income" and the taxes on income. What is the tax rate on payroll earnings? What is the tax rate on capital games? What is the tax rate on interest, rent incomes, etc? The US tax code is regressive and is aimed at lower-earning wage-earners. The wealthy can shelter income, and they enjoy low tax-rates that are designed especially to favor the types of income that they enjoy.

Right-wingers sometimes float the "flat-tax" red-herring, but they fail to mention that if all income was taxed equally on a fair basis, their sponsors would have to pay a fair share of taxes, and that is something that they are not willing to do. A progressive income tax on all forms of income would be fair, and would set this country back on a decent footing in short order, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Let's look at "income" and the taxes on income. What is the tax rate on payroll earnings? What is the tax rate on capital games? What is the tax rate on interest, rent incomes, etc? The US tax code is regressive ...

One can argue some about payroll taxes which are intended to be returned to you (good luck) if you like, or the odd Rockefeller escapee, but taken as a whole the federal income tax is overwhelmingly progressive, deductions and all.

 

[Al68]

This is regression in the extreme, though.

Not regressive at all, much less "in the extreme".

Poorer people have to spend their pay and they would pay almost all of a national sales tax.

False. Poor people tend to spend what little they have on things exempt from every National sales tax plan I've seen.

Rich people don't have to spend their income and expose themselves to taxation.

That's right. If they invest their money in the economy instead of spending it to consume wealth, the amount invested would not be taxed directly, except to the extent that the investment is spent on material goods. The portion spent to pay wages would be tax-free.

Even better for them, much of their income is not categorized as income.

None of it would be categorized as anything without an income tax. Duh!

The US tax code is regressive and is aimed at lower-earning wage-earners.

Instead of proving this to be false for the umpteenth time, I'll just ask you to substantiate it for the umpteenth time. Any evidence for that assertion?

How many more times do you plan to make this assertion with no attempt to substantiate it, then others prove it false unambiguously, then you drop it just to make the same claim later, with the same result? I predict many, based on history.

Right-wingers sometimes float the "flat-tax" red-herring, but they fail to mention that if all income was taxed equally on a fair basis, their sponsors would have to pay a fair share of taxes, and that is something that they are not willing to do.

Any evidence of that? I'm a "right-winger" and I advocate a flat tax (exempting a large standard deduction, which would exempt the poor and lower middle class completely). So do many Republicans.

Any evidence of a single Democrat in Washington who favors any kind of flat tax whatsoever?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Let's look at "income" and the taxes on income. What is the tax rate on payroll earnings?

Why don't you tell us?

What is the tax rate on capital games?

It's only 0% on long-term capital gains for the bottom 2 tax brackets. This is a tax-break for the middle class, not rich people.

What is the tax rate on interest, rent incomes, etc?

Relevance? These are tax-breaks for everyone.

The US tax code is regressive and is aimed at lower-earning wage-earners. The wealthy can shelter income, and they enjoy low tax-rates that are designed especially to favor the types of income that they enjoy.

If that were true, how do you defend the fact that the bottom 40% of wage earners pay NO federal icome taxes (and actually get some money back), and the top earners pay the vast majority of the federal gov't tax revenues?

Right-wingers sometimes float the "flat-tax" red-herring, but they fail to mention that if all income was taxed equally on a fair basis, their sponsors would have to pay a fair share of taxes, and that is something that they are not willing to do.

Who are "their sponsors"? Everyone should pay a share of taxes which fund basic gov't services, do you not agree?

A progressive income tax on all forms of income would be fair, and would set this country back on a decent footing in short order, IMO.

Define "fair."

... and you say "would be" as if the US tax code isn't highly progressive right now!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
-A. F. Tytler

 

[WhoWee]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
-A. F. Tytler

Then history repeats itself?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Then history repeats itself?

Essentially yes. It's a little creepy this quote was made 200 years ago, and the US is essentially following the prediction...

 

[WhoWee]

Essentially yes. It's a little creepy this quote was made 200 years ago, and the US is essntially following the prediction...

Have you been watching Glenn Beck?

When the system no longer works (vacuum is created) something will replace the system (fill the void).

I mentioned Beck because he often talks about the "shadow government" (the czars that have not been approved by the balance of power) and the "puppet master" (he says George Soros). I agree, it's "creepy".

 

[Gokul43201]

Even with the flat tax on state services, if I pay twice the taxes someone else does, that doesn't mean I'm granted twice the access to roads or police.

Odds are, a family of four earning $100,000 can afford more (as well as bigger and less efficient) cars, more vacations, will be more likely to drive to a nearby grocery store, and will have more savings and investments to protect from burglars than a family of four living on a $50,000 annual income. So, to some extent, it seems fair that they'd have to pay more tax rather than an equal amount. A better system, if one were possible, might be to tax based on consumption of services - perhaps the topic for a separate thread.

 

[Gokul43201]

Essentially yes. It's a little creepy this quote was made 200 years ago, and the US is essentially following the prediction...

In what way do you think the US is following the prediction?

 

[Al68]

In what way do you think the US is following the prediction?

The obvious way? In many recent elections, a majority voted for the candidate who "promised the most benefits" from the treasury, and specifically for that reason.

Isn't that the primary message of the Democratic Party?

 

[WhoWee]

In what way do you think the US is following the prediction?

In the context of this thread, nearly half of the population does not pay Federal income tax.

 

[Al68]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
-A. F. Tytler

Interestingly, Karl Marx said essentially the same thing.

But it's not a democratic process alone that's the problem. It's the combination of a democratic process and a government empowered to take property (that isn't owed to it) by force (institutionalized theft). Of course that scenario was thwarted by the U.S. Constitution, and worked pretty well for a while, until power hungry politicians realized they could corrupt the judicial branch by putting their cronies on the bench.