tax cuts for the rich = more money to stash in tax havens, could pay off entire deficit

Originally posted by misfitofscience
If you took all the profits that all companies in the US/Canada/ EU/ South America, it would be enough to pay off every national debt and every individuals debt and have room left over to give every human on earth a huge chunk of change. Not including the Asias (as a whole)

Just sayin'

edit on 27-8-2012 by misfitofscience because: (no reason given)

You will have to provide proof of that.

Even if you took 100% of the Profit of the Fortune 500 companies (825 Billion) Link, you would not even come close to paying a years worth of the U.S. Budget, let alone the deficit. And what exactly happens the following year once you have done that? Just saying.

reply to post by Sly1one

"Get rid of the loop hols - all of them." to me sounds like the right idea...but not very practical. Just like walking through walls would be the right idea to get out of jail...but not very practical, cuz its just not going to happen.

This logic is flawed. "Walking through walls", as you put it would be a cheater's method. By, "Removing loop holes", it would then mean serving time (or not offending) and is therefore more practical.

reply to post by schuyler


please cwatch this


if audits were preformed you would go into shock,
more than enough hidden to wipe the deficit in ten years

xp

The whole tax code has been something that has not set well with me for a long time (and I sure many of you as well). I believe that the only way to fix this tax mess is to completely gut the current tax code and start from scratch.

The new code will need to be much simpler and could be built in three ways:

1) Progressive tax similar to what we have now. Start at 0% for individuals/families at or below the poverty line and then increase the rate as we currently do. No deductions, shelters, havens, etc... The effective tax rate for each bracket to be lowered by some amount to offset the removal of deductions etc... Pay your taxes based on your total income at your tax bracket rate. Period.

2) Flat tax - Easier to implement. Every individual or family above the poverty line pays X% with the same conditions as stated in 1) above.

3) National sales tax - Only pay tax on items you buy. Food and other necessities could be exempt as they are now. The more you spend, the more you pay. Example: If sales tax was set at 10% (for easy math in post) The lower income family buys a car @ $15,000 pays $1500 in taxes on that car. The more well to do family buys their $50,000 SUV, they pay $5000 in taxes on that vehicle.

Which method is best? I don't know, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

The progressive tax rate could lead to more revenue for the gov't at lower rates but feels like it punishes success - you make more then you pay a higher percentage of your income, so why try to move up?

The flat rate seems the most fair from a percentage of income taxed although, it would raise the current effective tax rate on the lower income individuals/families.

Another issue that would need to be addressed is the gov't spending. I am sure that there are many overlapping departments and excesses that could be cut without affecting social security, medicare, welfare, etc... This part of the discussion should be in another thread though.

It's a tough fix to work through, but the bottom line is that something needs to be done before the US completely bleeds out.

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by Sly1one

 

"Get rid of the loop holes - all of them." to me sounds like the right idea...but not very practical. Just like walking through walls would be the right idea to get out of jail...but not very practical, cuz its just not going to happen.

This logic is flawed. "Walking through walls", as you put it would be a cheater's method. By, "Removing loop holes", it would then mean serving time (or not offending) and is therefore more practical.

You missed the point of what I was saying by light-years...change it from jail to something else if helps you understand the point I was making.

The point is that sometimes solutions may work in theory but be completely impractical and never happen and is thus...not a solution...the solution isn't based in reality as far as we know/understand it...