Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 But rich people will still be paying a lot more than poor people.How is that different from the way things are now?Because many people pay zero (0) into the Federal government, yet receive a great number of services. Our income tax rates vary based upon the AGI of the individual/couple. By doing the NST that lug mentions, everyone poor through rich pays the same percentage of tax. IOW, a person making $9/hr pays 10% every time they buy something and the rich millionaire pays 10% everytime they buy something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 We're not forced to. I chose to purchase a home because after my deduction in my income tax, it would come to only slightly more expensive than what I was renting for. If that incentive wasn't there I would have chose to continue renting, because now I am paying much more a month on my mortgage than I was before. Likewise, my office just purchased a couple new servers. They will increase our efficiency and (hopefully) help our growth. Part of the reason the choice was made to fund these upgrades is we can depreciate the value against our income. Taxing that purchase in the manner you described would have probably nullified the decision. You bought servers and didn't pay tax on them? The big picture is that if the gov gives someone or some business an incentive or a break on taxes, they make it up on someone else. They don't just print new money to cover the Federal loss (well maybe they don't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 You bought servers and didn't pay tax on them? Federal tax? Nope. In fact, purchasing them means we pay less to the feds. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 We're not forced to. I chose to purchase a home because, after my deduction, it would be only slightly more expensive than what I was renting for. If that incentive wasn't there I would have chose to continue renting, because now I am paying much more a month on my mortgage (for a smaller place) than I was in rent.Likewise, my office just purchased a couple new servers. They will increase our efficiency and (hopefully) help our growth. Part of the reason the choice was made to fund these upgrades is we can depreciate the value against our income. Taxing that purchase in the manner you described would have probably nullified the decision. I am a home owner, because I prefer to own my own crap as opposed to someone else having ultimate say in the matter. Same with the company. I bought the building. It isn't saving squat, but I can landscape it/paint it/fix the parking lot and do whatever I want provided it meets code. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not there is a tax benefit. Ownership is freedom, not a tax deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Federal tax? Nope. True. But if you and your company didn't pay corporate or personal income tax, you'd have more money available for purchases. Now if the two exactly balance out, you still get the benefit of eliminating most of the IRS and rediculous tax code, illegal aliens/undocumented workers are now paying taxes, everyone knows exactly what their government is costing them at every purchase, retailers are the tax collectors and you have a million of them doing it for free, everyone has paid for their government (instead of only the top 50%), giving them a better moral standing in making decisions and would be more concerned with the cost when it's not just some rich guy bearing all the burden. The government should be viewed as a service provider for the citizen, not his boss. Currently, 1/2 the people are not paying and are deciding how the 1/2 that are's money is to be spent. I fail to see the fairness in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasper383 Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 But rich people will still be paying a lot more than poor people.How is that different from the way things are now? It would give the individual more discretion over how much tax they pay. Don't buy that yacht, don't pay a lot in tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasper383 Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Highly regressive. Most flat tax proposals I have seen would tax essentials at a lower rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 You bought servers and didn't pay tax on them? The big picture is that if the gov gives someone or some business an incentive or a break on taxes, they make it up on someone else. They don't just print new money to cover the Federal loss (well maybe they don't). The money never belonged to gov't. It belongs to the business. If the gov't needs to get by on less, they should. Regardless of the situation, a business will and should attempt to pay as little tax as possible. But under your proposed tax system, a business that invests heavily in itself and attempts to grow is taxed much more than one that just stands pat. Our economy needs a lot of the first type of business to keep rolling. It is completely dependent on growth. So we have put mechanisms in place to encourage just that. They may not be perfect, but at least they exist and do (to some degree) work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Because many people pay zero (0) into the Federal government, yet receive a great number of services. Our income tax rates vary based upon the AGI of the individual/couple. By doing the NST that lug mentions, everyone poor through rich pays the same percentage of tax. IOW, a person making $9/hr pays 10% every time they buy something and the rich millionaire pays 10% everytime they buy something. But more of a poor person's income will go straight into essentials, while richer people won't be paying as much of a proportion, most of their cash will go into banks and not be spent. Where is all the money for invasions, wars, tanks etc. going to come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P1gg1e Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 You posting makes too much sense. It could never happen as it would never get through Congress. As for those people needing the cable and TV, well, why would they save, when the government is there to save them from themselves? Wait . . . .who is then going to save them from the government? Someone hold my hand!My point about the cable bill was that ( this is at least from the family and friends that don't have insurance and are below the poverty level) they have things they can cut back on and change but don't. Don't focus on the amount stated only that the priority isn't health care its entertainment. Also Cigarettes... Put that $100 in a HSA every month with a high deductible plan and you are covered much better then nothing. We though would be highly effected by a universal system. We had our youngest at home and choose non conventional medicine. We likely would loose the most important thing to our family. Choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Someone hold my hand!My point about the cable bill was that ( this is at least from the family and friends that don't have insurance and are below the poverty level) they have things they can cut back on and change but don't. Don't focus on the amount stated only that the priority isn't health care its entertainment. Also Cigarettes... Put that $100 in a HSA every month with a high deductible plan and you are covered much better then nothing. We though would be highly effected by a universal system. We had our youngest at home and choose non conventional medicine. We likely would loose the most important thing to our family. Choice.Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 But more of a poor person's income will go straight into essentials, while richer people won't be paying as much of a proportion, most of their cash will go into banks and not be spent. Where is all the money for invasions, wars, tanks etc. going to come from? Why do you believe that all rich people just sit in their money? It is not what is done here. They are the ones who consume more goods and services and ultimately make more investments into the economy by sustaining jobs and in the case of the business owners, they create jobs. It used to be the goal of the majority in this country to make the big bucks. The government is doing everything possible to implode the economy with an ever increasing tax burden on those who are able to grow it.The poor do none of this and if they file tax returns they actually get money from the government every year in the form of 'earned income credit' they never worked for. That is free money and why should they get free money? As Dr. Laffer, economist, says you can't tax your way into prosperity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 most of their cash will go into banks and not be spent. Most rich people don't put most of their money in banks; it's one of the reasons that they're rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 They are pooling everyone's money and doing risk management. Why would they not deserve a cut, if they are assuming risk? Why can't the government do the same, and not siphon off profit? It seems to me that they've rigged the game such that they really assume very little risk, if any at all. And I don't see why they should be rewarded for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Someone hold my hand!My point about the cable bill was that ( this is at least from the family and friends that don't have insurance and are below the poverty level) they have things they can cut back on and change but don't. Don't focus on the amount stated only that the priority isn't health care its entertainment. Also Cigarettes... Put that $100 in a HSA every month with a high deductible plan and you are covered much better then nothing. We though would be highly effected by a universal system. We had our youngest at home and choose non conventional medicine. We likely would loose the most important thing to our family. Choice.Great points. Wonder what would happen if the poor were forced to pay into their own medical care (as well they should) and were told they couldn't smoke, drink, or have a car, cable or dish TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 It would give the individual more discretion over how much tax they pay. Don't buy that yacht, don't pay a lot in tax. Most lower income people don't have the luxury of not buying stuff. Don't buy that food, don't pay a lot in tax. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why can't the government do the same, and not siphon off profit? It seems to me that they've rigged the game such that they really assume very little risk, if any at all. And I don't see why they should be rewarded for this. If you're referring to the government you're entirely correct. They risk nothing and they never, ever make due with less like you and I must do if things are not so rosy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members faileddrummer Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 What I don't understand is why it seems to be necessary to keep funneling money to the insurance companies.That's because you don't understand who pays for all those political ads on TV . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 If you're referring to the government you're entirely correct. They risk nothing and they never, ever make due with less like you and I must do if things are not so rosy. No, I was referring to the insurance companies, and I thought that was quite clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why can't the government do the same, and not siphon off profit? It seems to me that they've rigged the game such that they really assume very little risk, if any at all. And I don't see why they should be rewarded for this.Little risk? They lose their ass when huge hurricanes hit. They also have to manage pools to make sure each is profitable just the same. They are responsible to the shareholders. Unlike the government, they can't poop money if it isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 No, I was referring to the insurance companies, and I thought that was quite clear. So you think insurance companies should make no profit? You don't see them taking risks? Isn't that what insurance is all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm all for the Fair Tax, but it wasn't designed for funding national health care, though I'm sure it could be. But then again, I think we should ditch the for-profit medical system entirely and move to a single (gubmint) payer system. Encourage innovation through awards (cash money, not shiny medals), and digitize all records. Taking the profit angle out of healthcare would drop prices signifigantly, and remov layers of unneccessary red tape in the form of Insurance companies and lawyers. Pass medical tort reform, and you get even more savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 The money never belonged to gov't. It belongs to the business. If the gov't needs to get by on less, they should. Regardless of the situation, a business will and should attempt to pay as little tax as possible. But under your proposed tax system, a business that invests heavily in itself and attempts to grow is taxed much more than one that just stands pat. Our economy needs a lot of the first type of business to keep rolling. It is completely dependent on growth. So we have put mechanisms in place to encourage just that. They may not be perfect, but at least they exist and do (to some degree) work. The big picture is that the business is getting a break on taxes, correct? Assuming the amount of tax money needed is the same, they are paying less and reaping future gains on the backs of those who can't afford to upgrade are not getting tax breaks and in essence are paying more. Why do you hate poor businesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm all for the Fair Tax, but it wasn't designed for funding national health care, though I'm sure it could be. But then again, I think we should ditch the for-profit medical system entirely and move to a single (gubmint) payer system. Encourage innovation through awards (cash money, not shiny medals), and digitize all records. Taking the profit angle out of healthcare would drop prices signifigantly, and remov layers of unneccessary red tape in the form of Insurance companies and lawyers. Pass medical tort reform, and you get even more savings. Does the government set doctor/nurses salaries in this plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm all for the Fair Tax, but it wasn't designed for funding national health care, though I'm sure it could be. But then again, I think we should ditch the for-profit medical system entirely and move to a single (gubmint) payer system. Encourage innovation through awards (cash money, not shiny medals), and digitize all records. Taking the profit angle out of healthcare would drop prices signifigantly, and remov layers of unneccessary red tape in the form of Insurance companies and lawyers. Pass medical tort reform, and you get even more savings. You have that backwards. There is no profit in healthcare or very little and it is the government that makes sure of that. Now it may be true in other regions of the US but it isn't the case in NY and other NE states. For instance a hospital or clinic cannot slash prices to get the competitive edge and they cannot advertise slashed prices like a furniture store. The only people who make big money in medicine are the docs as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.