The Tax Dilemma

**butch81385** · April 14th, 2010, 08:44 PM

So, in honor of Tax Day, I wanted to share the following thoughts:

Isn't it ironic that most Americans do everything that they can to minimize the amount of taxes that they must pay each year, yet these same people will fight to keep taxes from going up.

Government will require the same amount of money to operate (usually plus a little more for extra crap that was added for that year). People try to minimize their personal contribution, but will eventually be hit by a higher tax to compensate.

Almost makes me wonder what the taxes would look like if no one used loopholes... Of course there will always be people looking to lessen their individual financial responsibility so it would not be wise to not try to pay your own minimum, but it is an interesting thing to think about.

**SiliconJon** · April 14th, 2010, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by butch81385

So, in honor of Tax Day, I wanted to share the following thoughts:

Isn't it ironic that most Americans do everything that they can to minimize the amount of taxes that they must pay each year, yet these same people will fight to keep taxes from going up.

Government will require the same amount of money to operate (usually plus a little more for extra crap that was added for that year). People try to minimize their personal contribution, but will eventually be hit by a higher tax to compensate.

Almost makes me wonder what the taxes would look like if no one used loopholes... Of course there will always be people looking to lessen their individual financial responsibility so it would not be wise to not try to pay your own minimum, but it is an interesting thing to think about.

Paragraph 1) I wouldn't call it ironic, they just want to pay as little as possible, though I do still understand what you're trying to say.

2) The government will continue to grow so long as the people let it through apathy or make it through actions.

3) I wonder what the tax and government systems would look like if people would use their American Idol and LOST viewing time to partake in politics, as politics rule everyone's life and liberties.

I think the whole thing is either moot or fallacious, though. Just because we give the government more money doesn't guarantee the government won't still need more money next year. It's not how much you make, it's how much you spend that determines your wealth and debts.

The monetary system is based on debt, money is printed out of thin air, and the people have learned how to write their own checks and watch the "money" fabricate out of thin air.

I could pay twice the taxes. I'm not going to make the government twice as healthy, but twice as large, twice as mean, and twice as dependent.

**The Real Bingo** · April 14th, 2010, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by SiliconJon

The monetary system is based on debt, money is printed out of thin air, and the people have learned how to write their own checks and watch the "money" fabricate out of thin air.

I could pay twice the taxes. I'm not going to make the government twice as healthy, but twice as large, twice as mean, and twice as dependent.

I hate to keep harping on that book I've been reading, but it's been stated that, with our current fiat money, the government doesn't even need to levy taxes...it can just use the Fed to print money and buy up its debt. Of course inflation would be the hidden tax at play - as it is already today. So, there ain't so such thing as a free lunch.

The only reasons for taxes are: 1) to make the people think everything is normal (imagine the shit hitting the fan when the people figure out the government doesn't need our taxes to operate) and 2) to redistribute wealth (i.e. social engineering).

Likewise, no matter what taxes are paid, the government will still require more. It's like a crack addict...sure, some crack today will make him happy, but what about tomorrow? What about next year when he needs twice as much crack to get the same amount of high?

**SiliconJon** · April 14th, 2010, 09:33 PM

Agreed. The taxes are required for reasons not conveyed to the People - social engineering with the majority of the engineering focused on building the pyramid, figuratively speaking.

Maybe we can get butch to read up on Jeckyl Island.

**SiliconJon** · April 14th, 2010, 09:54 PM

Would you quit using the word "liberal" in place of "asshole" or whatever fowl language you're implying with it, please?

**Atomic Rooster** · April 14th, 2010, 09:56 PM

Liberal, progressive, asshole. Same difference.

**Atomic Rooster** · April 14th, 2010, 10:23 PM

Jerry Brown was known as "Governor Moonbat" here in California.

No, wait. . . That was "Governor Moonbeam". My bad.

**pickel** · April 14th, 2010, 10:41 PM

Since we payed off the house and have little or no interest or other deductions that would be enough to itemize , we just pay the vultures whatever we have to after applying the standard deduction. Give them what they decree and leave us the hell alone.

**EXreaction** · April 14th, 2010, 11:52 PM

Just recently actually I've asked my economics instructor if she knows of/has access to the exact numbers paid in from taxes from different brackets and types. So hopefully I have a surprise waiting for me tomorrow when I go back. ^_^

I've been interested in looking at just how much in taxes is paid by individuals and corporations. I am interested to see if it would be possible to get rid of corporate taxes completely and just use a variable individual/family income tax and sales tax to generate all of the tax revenue.

At the moment I am thinking that taxing income, unused wealth (non-invested), sales, and imports might be about as good of a taxation system as one can get.

Income tax as variable, with a few deductibles such as number of dependencies. The percentage will raise as your income raises to try and balance out the money supply with keeping more money in the hands of consumers who spend the most and drive the demand side of the economy. No corporate income tax, only for individuals (stricter fraud laws may be needed to prevent non-business related expenses from being covered for individuals within the corporation); this leaves more profits to be spent on investments and wages and should make competition in the market higher (especially with foreign markets).

Unused wealth is a huge waste of capital. Any amount higher than 15% (the average for the US is 10%) of your income earned after taxes should be taxed again if it is unused after one year. The more that is spent and invested in the economy the more it will continue to grow and the more you will continue to get back in your paycheck every year. This will have a bad side-effect of possibly doing damage to banks' ability to loan out money as they'll have less reserves, but this can be supplemented by lending through the government.

Sales tax is impossible to skirt by, unlike income tax, so it must be balanced with income tax (not too much to reduce the disposable income from the lower income brackets). I am not sure if a bracketed sales tax would be possible, but it may be something to look at to help keep taxes lower for those with lower incomes.

Imports to give a higher chance for US manufacturers to be able to compete.

This is just the general idea I currently have, mostly working from the angle of what would promote the greatest economic expansion on both the supply and demand side of the economy. Once I get the numbers I'll see if I can do some crunching and find out how workable it would be, although I am not sure the information will be detailed enough to allow me to do that.

**Creatures** · April 15th, 2010, 03:57 AM

Is it just me who gives a s*** and pays as it comes?

Are you all that money hungry? I can live with what I have and try to make more but why should i waste several days or even more to find a way to pay less when I could work the same amount and make up the lost money?

I see my street rebuild within a year, I see government helping the poor, I see new hospitals, I see better methadone centers etc.

I see the progress, why should I want to stop it?

Creatures

PS: sure you can not make up all the money you have to pay as taxes, was just a rhetoric argument ;P

**SiliconJon** · April 15th, 2010, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by voogru

How about Moonbat

It sounds cool too.

Hell yeah, just not a word whose true meaning revolves around freedom and thoroughness

**MTAtech** · April 15th, 2010, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by EXreaction

Just recently actually I've asked my economics instructor if she knows of/has access to the exact numbers paid in from taxes from different brackets and types. So hopefully I have a surprise waiting for me tomorrow when I go back. ^_^

I've been interested in looking at just how much in taxes is paid by individuals and corporations. I am interested to see if it would be possible to get rid of corporate taxes completely and just use a variable individual/family income tax and sales tax to generate all of the tax revenue.

At the moment I am thinking that taxing income, unused wealth (non-invested), sales, and imports might be about as good of a taxation system as one can get.

Income tax as variable, with a few deductibles such as number of dependencies. The percentage will raise as your income raises to try and balance out the money supply with keeping more money in the hands of consumers who spend the most and drive the demand side of the economy. No corporate income tax, only for individuals (stricter fraud laws may be needed to prevent non-business related expenses from being covered for individuals within the corporation); this leaves more profits to be spent on investments and wages and should make competition in the market higher (especially with foreign markets).

Unused wealth is a huge waste of capital. Any amount higher than 15% (the average for the US is 10%) of your income earned after taxes should be taxed again if it is unused after one year. The more that is spent and invested in the economy the more it will continue to grow and the more you will continue to get back in your paycheck every year. This will have a bad side-effect of possibly doing damage to banks' ability to loan out money as they'll have less reserves, but this can be supplemented by lending through the government.

Sales tax is impossible to skirt by, unlike income tax, so it must be balanced with income tax (not too much to reduce the disposable income from the lower income brackets). I am not sure if a bracketed sales tax would be possible, but it may be something to look at to help keep taxes lower for those with lower incomes.

Imports to give a higher chance for US manufacturers to be able to compete.

This is just the general idea I currently have, mostly working from the angle of what would promote the greatest economic expansion on both the supply and demand side of the economy. Once I get the numbers I'll see if I can do some crunching and find out how workable it would be, although I am not sure the information will be detailed enough to allow me to do that.

A couple of things. The first is that eliminating income taxes and shifting them to sales taxes is regressive, since most low-income people spend most of their income.

Second, corporations should pay taxes. There is no evidence that if taxes on corporations were removed that they'd respond by lowering prices or paying workers more. They'd just have higher profits that go into owner's pockets. Thus, why would enriching those already at the top be better public policy?

Third, what is 'unused wealth?' Most wealth isn't cash under the mattress. It is either in banks, where it is loaned; in stocks, where it is supporting corporate growth; in real property, where it is providing housing or rental income.

**butch81385** · April 15th, 2010, 09:51 AM

An important thing to consider is what exactly is "fair" when it comes to taxes?

Is fair having every person pay the same dollar amount?

Is fair having every person pay the same percentage?

Is fair having every person pay based on the amount of services they receive? (hard to do with services such as welfare, where those who receive the services obviously can't afford to pay for them).

So what is fair?

**EXreaction** · April 15th, 2010, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by voogru

This already happens, it's called inflation. $10,000 in 1940 will buy you a new house. $10,000 in 2010 won't even buy you a new car. That's some serious devaluation.

I don't think too many people have stashed $10,000 under their beds for 70 years.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

A couple of things. The first is that eliminating income taxes and shifting them to sales taxes is regressive, since most low-income people spend most of their income.

Second, corporations should pay taxes. There is no evidence that if taxes on corporations were removed that they'd respond by lowering prices or paying workers more. They'd just have higher profits that go into owner's pockets. Thus, why would enriching those already at the top be better public policy?

Third, what is 'unused wealth?' Most wealth isn't cash under the mattress. It is either in banks, where it is loaned; in stocks, where it is supporting corporate growth; in real property, where it is providing housing or rental income.

Didn't notice the part where I said to use a balance of income and sales taxes to keep the taxes on low-income and low-cost items less?

Profits that go to the owners will be taxed much higher than they would through a corporate income tax if the owners are already making significant income.

Wealth saved by most is not significant, I am talking of people who save millions. This is one of the areas I am still looking into as I am not sure how it would even be possible to tax.