Who knows better than Warren??

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
The flat sales tax hits the poorer harder than the rich. A larger percentage of their income is spent on taxes and these are the people that have less to spend anyway. That's what regressive means. It makes it a lot harder for the people in the lower income brackets to buy the necessities. The rich get to ride on the backs of the poor. Some people may consider that fair. I don't.

I don't know where you get the 49%. I'm sure there are statistics that show that. I'm an engineer that dealt with numbers all my working life. I know numbers and statistics can be manipulated to show what you want them to show. Just group the statistics in a way they show what you want them to show and make some friendly assumptions. But think about this a minute. Currently, the people in the lower tax brackets get a break on income tax. As much as we complain, sales tax really isn't all that bad compared to a lot of other places. To generate the same amount of revenue, the sales tax would only have to go up to a certain amount. I don't know what number is being used this week, but it is a lot less than the 49%. Who do you think will be picking up the slack, making up the difference in total tax revenue? It will not be the super rich. It will hit the people hardest that can least stand it.

I feel extremely confident in saying that a person that earns $20,00 a year will pay a lot higher percentage of their income in taxes with a flat sales tax on consumption and eliminating income tax than a person earning $200,000 or $2,000,000 a year. I think a graduated income tax, with the loopholes removed, is fairer.

This is personal opinion and not proven fact, but I also think a graduated income tax with loopholes removed will generate or save more jobs than a flat tax on all consumption. With the graduated income tax with loopholes removed, the lower bracket people will give less to the government and spend more on consumption, which means more people have to work to produce those goods to be consumed. As Buffet said, the super rich will continue to invest money and continue to make a profit, even with the higher tax rate. History has proven that. Go back to the Eisenhower years and look at the tax structure then. I'm not going to give you the numbers because you would not believe me anyway. Those were times when the middle class was growing. There were a lot of other factors behind that than just the tax rate, but those years are proof the higher tax rates on the super rich did not slow the growth. I don't think tne tax structure caused the growth. I think it did not hinder the growth. Tax structure is important, but other factors caused the growth in the 50's.

These are some of my thoughts on why a flat consumption tax is not best for our country. Others obviously disagree. Fair is a nebulous term. It means different things to different people.

 

[pbjmaker]

If you raise the tax on the wealthiest won't they just move their money around and/or out of the country so it can't be taxed? I am pretty sure they are really good at finding all the loopholes to help them hold on to the majority of their own money. They didn't get rich by being stupid with it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

jojo@rolling acres farm :

So what is your solution? Leave things as they are? Sorry, I don't believe we can leave it to career politicians. We can not keep taxing our way out of these things. We need to make cuts and we need to make them now. The budget deal that was cut several days ago was not a solution. Why did they think they needed to wait to start making adjustments to the budget until AFTER the next election? Because they are afraid to make a stand! We send them there to stand for what the people of our nation want. We need to stop endless aid to other countries. We need to stop nation building outside of our own Nation. We need to enforce our immigration laws that already on the books.
The government needs to stop subsidizing companies like EXxon Mobile.

Congress needs to re- learn how to say things in simple terms. They need to write bills that are straight to the point. They need to stop attaching ammendments to bills that have nothing to do with the original topic of the bill. Government is too big and too involved in our lives. By saying that it is "too complicated" for the average citizen or as you say "Rookie" to get involved is a cop out. That is like throwing up your hands and giving up.

I also think the committe of 12 is a mistake - we do everything by "committee" now and most of the time behind closed doors this is not what our founders had in mind. What happened to the plan of posting all bills on line for review - before the bill is voted on? Another empty promise put forward as window dressing to appease us Rookies I guess.

They stopped listening to the voter long ago. They break off into their committees - become insulated from the real world and vote the way the special interests tell them to. It needs to stop. Please don't tell me that they try to explain why things are the way they are and we're not listening.They tell us what they think we want to hear. They're the ones that aren't listening.

Obama is taking a 10 day vacation. Congress is on their break. They all need to get back to Washington, Stop with all the fund raising trips and parties and get back to work. It's called leadership and we need it now - along with a good dose of common sense. The path we're on is not working.

.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Not all, but a lot. Leave things as they are? No, it is not working. I think the part that is not working is that we are not allowing the people we elect to honestly address the issues. And we elect enough of the wrong people that they are able to keep anything constructive from being accomplished. It is we the voters that are causing the problems by sending the wrong people to congress for the wrong reasons, then not allowing them to do their jobs. Politics, like anything else, requires certainb talents and skills. The skill that is most important is getting elected, not helping our county. The issues are complicated. Not too complicated for moist Americans if we would bother to really study them, but more complicated than a simplistic jingle or 15 second sound bite can convey. The career politicians and their staffs have the ability to concentrate on the issues. That's why I think a lot of rookie politicians seem to change when they get to Washington. Many actually take the time and make the effort to discover what the consequences of their campaign promises really are. Do you want a politician that will blindly follow a campaign promise or one that will dig into an issue and do what they consider is really best for our country?

I fully agree we need some pretty big cuts. As I said above, I think the increased taxes on the super rich is more of a distraction that a solution, although I do think it is fairer and better for our country. The question is, which cuts and how much? I think an honest discussion of what the benefits and consequences of those cuts are instead of basing it on out of context jingles and platitudes is more beneficial.

Let's take one of yours, the subsidies to Exxon Mobile. I worked in the oil industry, both domestic and abroad. The oil companies make tempting target because if the huge amounts of money involved. But if you are investing Billions of dollars in one project and you have several projects going on, you need to make some pretty big profits.

I worked on developing prospects in the US, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. I saw several good projects that could have produced domestic oil and create American jobs not get developed because of the tax structure, while more marginal projects did get developed. Decreasing subsidies to the oil companies will decrease domestic production and will cost American jobs. I think that a look at what those subsidies are, how much domestic production and American jobs they generate, are legitimate topics. But to simplistically cut the subsidies without understanding what the consequences are is not the way to get to the right answer.​

 

[Gmsg01]

Don't tax me, don't tax you, tax the man behind the tree.

No one wants to pay more taxes, but NO ONE wants to contemplate a cut in a benefit they want/need. Cut Medicare? You are accused of in acted "granndma death bills". Cut Medicaid? You are accused of being one of the richest nations in the world which refuses to provide care for the needy. Cut social security? POLITICAL SUICIDE. AARP is way too influential for their to be any serious cuts from the golden age.

NONE of the cuts are good, and anyone can argue why that program should be maintained, or even strengthened. But the fact of the matter is that we can not afford to pay for all the promises made, and people are going to feel the pain. Best we can hope for is shared pain. I do agree with Warren Buffett, there is a portion of our population that could possibly contribute a greater portion without is cutting into their basic quality of life (food, shelter, medical care), and probably not have an impact on the "extras" (leisure, acquisitions, "stuff"). The question is whether or not our population has the intestinal fortitude to make the changes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
Yeah, I agree with you. It is a good point. They are not stupid with their money. It is currently being invested where they can make the most profit and their tax lawyers and accountants are great at finding any loopholes. But they also look at the risk involved. Safety of that investment is also important.

If tax rates go up, some money will probably leave the country. But maybe it will help stabilize our economy where it is considered a safer investment. Maybe the net effect would not be all that bad. Most of the super rich look at the world as one global economy. I think if they have stability, they will better know what the risks of those investments are in the US. I am not a professional economist, but I am not convinced the net effect of adding stability to our tax structure will be all that bad.

Those loopholes are there for a reason. Some are favors to big campaign contributors. But a lot are there with the intent to create jobs or have other actual beneficial effects. To blindly close all loopholes is probably not best for our country, but there are a lot that could be closed without hurting us. My opinion only of course.

 

[chickened]

You can change the tax system all anyone wants and the end result will be and ALWAYS will be the middle/working class that pays the taxes, the poor do not pay taxes and it would be counter productive to think they will. The rich will figure out a way to not pay also which leaves the middle class. Taxing the "rich" is only an election ploy. Are not most politicians wealthy? are they going to tax themselves? come on...

Massachusetts's tried a wealth tax in 2008 30% of the wealthy disappeared as will more as the economy suffers which is part of the reason taxing the wealthy won't work, unless getting rid of the wealthy is your goal.

 

[jojo@rolling acres farm]

It's not only Exxon Mobile that get subsidies and HUGE tax breaks it is companies like GE who are huge supporters of the Democratic party and poured a lot of money into the Obama campaign - since I'm sure they hedge their bets GE probably suported several Republicans as well. The CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, now heads up Obama's Outside Panel of Economic Advisers - what a joke! GE provides big donations to the campaign and the then they get to enjoy huge tax breaks and CEO Immelt gets to sit on a panel and grease the skids even further.

I'd also like to know why we're not drilling here? We fully support other countries that are drilling off shore - again, it is the environmental lobby blocking the way. How many jobs would drilling off shore create? I've heard one reason drilling is frowned up is time...it'll take x amount of time to get up and going. Well, let's do it! We should be looking at every option - everything should be on the table - everything!

I know I'm stating the obvious here - but our tax structure is a mess and far too complicated - and it's by design! The IRS likes to intimidate and be superior - let's start taking a look at duplication and excess within govenment agencies like the IRS.

Our political system is broken - we need to expect and demand more from our elected representatives. Guess what? They work for us - we don't work for them. They are NOT the ruling class. As far as cuts within programs and entitlements go - everything should be on the table and up for review - no scared cows. People who have made a career out of politics need to go - I don't care what party they belong to or who they are. We need to clean house in a big way and maintain our focus. It'll be painful but we have to do it - no more excuses - they need to get back to Washington to do the people's business. No more vacations on our dime. Stop waiting for the "right time" within the politcal cycle to make a stand. The right time is now.