23% sales tax; no fed. income tax

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Dude: just kidding....but what kind of car will you be buying for 8 grand?

A used car. Nothing wrong with that.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

A used car. Nothing wrong with that.

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

i agree that cost of living should be factored in. 20k here in arkansas goes a lot further than 20k in new york or california.

[randallscott35]

Flat taxes aren't a terrible idea, the key is not allowing people to get around the tax. The IRS wouldn't need to be disbanded, their role would have to change.

Consumption taxes are not a new idea. The thought of putting a dollar tax on gas right now in order to push conservation and actually lowering overall oil prices would probably work. It is those kinds of taxes which need to be enacted first.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i agree that cost of living should be factored in. 20k here in arkansas goes a lot further than 20k in new york or california.

Zeig: How much IS moonshine in Arkansas?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

Bill Gates would not have to pay much in taxes even if they did raise his tax rate to 95%. Most of his money is in stock. You don't have to pay any tax on that until you sell the stock. So even if his stock appreciates by $5 billion a year, he wouldn't have to pay any taxes on that until he sells the stock. He may never sell it. When he dies, he may actually leave the stock to charity. In that way, the charity would receive more money. Let's say he planned on leaving the money to charity. If he had $40 billion in stock and he sold the stock, he would have to pay $20 billion in taxes and the other $20 billion would go to charity. If he did not sell the stock, but gave the stock to the charity, then the charity would get the whole $40 billion.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Bill Gates would not have to pay much in taxes even if they did raise his tax rate to 95%. Most of his money is in stock. You don't have to pay any tax on that until you sell the stock. So even if his stock appreciates by $5 billion a year, he wouldn't have to pay any taxes on that until he sells the stock. He may never sell it. When he dies, he may actually leave the stock to charity. In that way, the charity would receive more money. Let's say he planned on leaving the money to charity. If he had $40 billion in stock and he sold the stock, he would have to pay $20 billion in taxes and the other $20 billion would go to charity. If he did not sell the stock, but gave the stock to the charity, then the charity would get the whole $40 billion.

All this commentary simply dances around the issue...my point (my only point) is that all people are connected and that which harms one harms us all, I said at the outset that equal distribution of wealth will probably never happen...goes against the greedy nature of man....but it should! In my perfect world...Gates wouldn't have all that stock so that's a moot point. Someone asked who determines how much is too much? The obvious (and only) answer is...each one of us. This crazy idea that life is about who gets the most is so counterproductive...you can live in a solid gold mansion on a hill...but if one day the peasants riot and burn it down with you inside, well.. are you better off than if you had a comfortable dwelling and there were no rich folks and peasants, just people sharing what certainly is more than enough to go around? As long as people delude themselves into believing that they DESERVE more than the next guy, we will never have peace...or real freedom. The rich work hard? Some certainly have...but ever hear Dylan's song, Hollis Brown? There are folks who have nothing but have worked hard all their lives, 50 years in the fields from sunup to sundown only to lose everything to sickness, natural disaster, or some greedy bastard stealing it. Fair? What is fair? Again, to quote a Dylan song..."steal a little and they call you thief, steal a lot and they make you king"!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

All this commentary simply dances around the issue...my point (my only point) is that all people are connected and that which harms one harms us all, I said at the outset that equal distribution of wealth will probably never happen...goes against the greedy nature of man....but it should! In my perfect world...Gates wouldn't have all that stock so that's a moot point. Someone asked who determines how much is too much? The obvious (and only) answer is...each one of us. This crazy idea that life is about who gets the most is so counterproductive...you can live in a solid gold mansion on a hill...but if one day the peasants riot and burn it down with you inside, well.. are you better off than if you had a comfortable dwelling and there were no rich folks and peasants, just people sharing what certainly is more than enough to go around? As long as people delude themselves into believing that they DESERVE more than the next guy, we will never have peace...or real freedom. The rich work hard? Some certainly have...but ever hear Dylan's song, Hollis Brown? There are folks who have nothing but have worked hard all their lives, 50 years in the fields from sunup to sundown only to lose everything to sickness, natural disaster, or some greedy bastard stealing it. Fair? What is fair? Again, to quote a Dylan song..."steal a little and they call you thief, steal a lot and they make you king"!

You said in another post that communism is not bad. Communism is terrible. Even if you had a communist nation that went exactly by the book, it would be terrible. If everyone was going to make the same amount of money and nobody could live in a house bigger than 1,500 sq. feet, there would be no incentive to work hard. What do you think drives people? This country would be totally ruined. It is the capitalist environment that produces a genius like Steve Jobs. There wouldn't be people like Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet if we had communism here. Why would these guys work their butts off 16 hours a day if they could make the same amount of money being a waiter. People like Buffet and Jobs create tens of thousands of jobs. Our country would be in big trouble if we didn't have people like them, and I don't think we would have people like them if we had communism here. The productivity of the country would go straight downhill if we had communism because nobody would have any incentive to work hard.

I think there would be way more poverty here if we had communism, even if it was communism in its most pristine state with no corruption. Communism doesn't sound that bad in theory but when you really think about it, you realize how terrible it would be.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You said in another post that communism is not bad. Communism is terrible. Even if you had a communist nation that went exactly by the book, it would be terrible. If everyone was going to make the same amount of money and nobody could live in a house bigger than 1,500 sq. feet, there would be no incentive to work hard. What do you think drives people? This country would be totally ruined. It is the capitalist environment that produces a genius like Steve Jobs. There wouldn't be people like Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet if we had communism here. Why would these guys work their butts off 16 hours a day if they could make the same amount of money being a waiter. People like Buffet and Jobs create tens of thousands of jobs. Our country would be in big trouble if we didn't have people like them, and I don't think we would have people like them if we had communism here. The productivity of the country would go straight downhill if we had communism because nobody would have any incentive to work hard.

I think there would be way more poverty here if we had communism, even if it was communism in its most pristine state with no corruption. Communism doesn't sound that bad in theory but when you really think about it, you realize how terrible it would be.

Another argument that ignores my point...why would people work hard if not to acquire wealth? That's the genius of capitalism, it flowers from the darker aspects of the human mind where self-serving greed abounds and blocks out the light of community and brotherhood (how's that for overstated and flowery prose?)...in all seriousness though, it is accurate albeit a bit self-indulgent. Again, back to basics...we are taught from birth on that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions...wealth and power. I believe that a successful life is otherwise measured therefore I view wealth and power as tools to be shared. Communism is a word...a term coined by a bunch of old men, it's meaningless. A society where everyone has an equal share may someday actually evolve...I'm not holding my breath. But anyway, to answer the question...people may someday work hard to build a better, safer , kinder world for everyone...realizing that "everyone" includes them!

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Another argument that ignores my point...why would people work hard if not to acquire wealth? That's the genius of capitalism, it flowers from the darker aspects of the human mind where self-serving greed abounds and blocks out the light of community and brotherhood (how's that for overstated and flowery prose?)...in all seriousness though, it is accurate albeit a bit self-indulgent. Again, back to basics...we are taught from birth on that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions...wealth and power. I believe that a successful life is otherwise measured therefore I view wealth and power as tools to be shared. Communism is a word...a term coined by a bunch of old men, it's meaningless. A society where everyone has an equal share may someday actually evolve...I'm not holding my breath. But anyway, to answer the question...people may someday work hard to build a better, safer , kinder world for everyone...realizing that "everyone" includes them!

Pete what planet are you on? If anything the difference between rich and poor gets wider year by year. It would take a revolution, and a violent one at that, to redistribute the kind of wealth gap there is now....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Another argument that ignores my point...why would people work hard if not to acquire wealth? That's the genius of capitalism, it flowers from the darker aspects of the human mind where self-serving greed abounds and blocks out the light of community and brotherhood (how's that for overstated and flowery prose?)...in all seriousness though, it is accurate albeit a bit self-indulgent. Again, back to basics...we are taught from birth on that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions...wealth and power. I believe that a successful life is otherwise measured therefore I view wealth and power as tools to be shared. Communism is a word...a term coined by a bunch of old men, it's meaningless. A society where everyone has an equal share may someday actually evolve...I'm not holding my breath. But anyway, to answer the question...people may someday work hard to build a better, safer , kinder world for everyone...realizing that "everyone" includes them!

I don't think that the quality of life would improve for people in a society that was set up for everyone to have an equal share. I think the quality of life would decrease for practically everyone. The productivity for such a society would decrease so much that I think the quality of life would probably decrease for everyone.

I strongly disagree with your contention that "we are taught from birth that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions....wealth and power". Were you taught that? I certainly wasn't. I don't know anyone who was taught that. Maybe a few people were taught that. Donald Trump seems like he may have been taught that. LOL.

Anyway, I think that if you did a poll in this country, I think you would find the opposite. I think that most people would say that money is important, but I think very few would say that it is the most important thing to them.