Health care reform has failed, it's time to go back to tax reform

a reply to: Edumakated

You are being selective with your source there. First off, how much is a "a handful"? Usually when you use a description like that it isn't many. Probably like 5 - 10.

Second off, you conveniently failed to post this:

Some of the revenue hit is being blamed on changes affecting hedge funds, an important industry for Connecticut. Sullivan noted how several international hedge funds have recently failed, resulting in "significant retrenchment" from investors. That drop in tolerance for risk brings smaller margins and ultimately less personal income for the state to tax, he added.

Third off, why haven't you addressed my source? Your source weakly links the drop in tax revenue to rich people leaving but provides no evidence. Hell it doesn't even provide numbers of how many left. It CERTAINLY never gets around to proving causation. My source is an article reporting on a study, which you all but ignored to post your anecdote.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Edumakated

For sure. Corporations are paying way too much and are suffering horrendously because of it (only 2,000% executive profit growth instead of 10,000%). Let the Lower/Middle class fat-cats finally pay their fair share!

Corporations don't pay taxes...

The tax is just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Sooner or later, corporations will choose to locate to more tax favorable countries. Capital is fluid and will always seek to reduce expenses.

This is just straight up untrue. It's just a conservative talking point. If you feel otherwise, explain why it is easier to get a corporate job in high tax New York City but near impossible in low tax Wisconsin? But hey, here are some studies on it too.
Studies: Rich Don't Flee High-Tax States. No company in its right mind would leave this country for a lower tax rate in Somalia. Plus tax rates are higher in Europe than they are here.

Though, if you think about it you are being hypocritical. At first you say that corporations don't pay taxes then suggest that these same corporations that aren't paying taxes will flee high tax areas. Why? If they aren't paying them like you suggest then there is no need for them to leave.

Go look at your cell phone bill, airline ticket, or any number of invoices and you will often see surcharges for various taxes itemized. Businesses absolutely pass all taxes on to consumers in one form or another. Does it translate dollar for dollar? No, but it most certainly is taken into account.

At some point, taxes get too high and a company decides they can lower their cost of operations by moving. Regardless if the consumer is paying it directly or not, when you have competitors in lower tax areas, it means they can price more aggressively.

I'm not arguing that companies don't pass on taxes to you. I know they do. I'm pointing out you being hypocritical with your logic. If companies have a means to pass taxes onto the consumer, then clearly they have a way to offset high taxes and thus high taxes aren't going to run them out of town.

a reply to: Aazadan

Please explain HOW this will raise taxes.

Or is that just a ferried promise from someone who actually read the material you wish to speculate on?

Who saw what is what Im asking.

Maybe Trump isnt even going to increase taxes by 99% ,lol, and so all this fevered worry is not even merited.

How do you know?

a reply to: tadaman

I already explained. If you want revenues to stay the same, cutting taxes for one group means increasing them for another. What we're actually looking at though is increased spending given the current budgets, so cutting for one group means increasing them for another even more.

You don't have to believe me though, he's Trumps tax advisor saying that taxes likely will go up
abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: Aazadan

It doesn't have to be sales tax that does it. But if im being honest...if taxing my commerce doesn't fund the government, then its up to the government to either scale back or improve commercial transaction rates. I think taxing labor is an atrocity against man, as it is essentially taxing your life. It shouldn't cost to live.

That said, there is nothing that stops the FICA extracted from my paycheck from being the final transaction for that amount. Nothing at all stops me from having taxes levied based on income on that paycheck, with no further work needed by me or the government. Its just stupid that I have to then file paperwork at years end to settle up the account, or that my interest free loan to the government must be remunerated to me only after jumping through their series of hoops. Those hoops, mind you, are the opt out point for most people with enough money to pay a finance wizard to cast some spells, and represent the biggest point of contention in the game of Class Warfare.

All im saying is reduce the points of friction by reducing government interaction with the people in any official capacity. The more the government touches my life, the more frustrated and angry I get.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You have to do that at the end of the year, because people lie. You can take 0 exemptions on your paychecks, or you can take a bunch, and payroll departments will withhold that. It's still up to you to pay the right amount at the end of the year, from payroll withholdings though.

It's also not an easy problem to remove because of progressive tax brackets. They try to project your income throughout the year, and tax the appropriate amount per check, but if we simplified the paperwork and simply taxed check by check, then people would see a decreasing paycheck throughout the year, as they crossed into higher and higher brackets and that wouldn't be a good thing in most cases.

We could shift to have some countries do it, where the government itself calculates all taxes, fills out the forms, and at the end of the year settles up with the citizens (usually resulting in refunds). But Americans are too distrustful of government to really be ok with that, and wouldn't want to expand the IRS to process their accounts that way anyways.

I do disagree on income taxes though, I think income taxes should be the sole method of taxation. No sales taxes, no corporate tax, no property tax, etc... just income. It just strikes me as the cleanest method, it allows for progressive tiers, it doesn't hurt the poor, it collects from everyone, and it's a one time tax on earnings, it doesn't come back to be paid on those same earnings year after year.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm sorry but you're just wrong. One year I think it was like 6 or 7 years ago I paid a negative 19% tax. Yes I actually got back more money than I put in.

We need a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage doesn't have to be much 10 or 12% would be more than enough to end up getting more than we already do. You got to understand that the Uber rich don't pay as much in taxes they use tax Havens like 501c's.

A flat tax is the only fair tax. I love it when people say the rich need to pay their fair share okay lowers their taxes by like 20% and then they'll be closer to paying their fair share.

Jaden

The wealthy pay an effective rate of about 14 or 15% right now. Everyone else pays an effective rate of about 11%. Why should the middle class face a tax increase in the name of tax reform, when they're not the ones that can afford it?

Flat tax is just a code word for making the poor pay more in order to give the rich tax breaks. When the poor have so little in taxable assets, as is currently the case... then you simply can't make up any substantial amount of revenue by taxing them more. It doesn't matter what percent you tax them at.

You're not getting it.

Who cares if you're paying 10% or 12% of the standard deduction doubles?

originally posted by: bigdaveyl
You're not getting it.

Who cares if you're paying 10% or 12% of the standard deduction doubles?

With the standard deduction doubling, several other deductions are being removed. It works out to about an additional $1000 saved, but with the brackets increasing, in most cases you'll wind up paying more.

Basically, they're rolling all the deductions into one, and then increasing your rate.