News-Record.com

I, for one, would welcome a thriving black market economy.

I need to see this bill. The "pay your taxes as you spend it" part is a little nebulous. No forms and no records etc. ??? Thanks for the heads up; I need to see how this works.

Denz,

Me tambien. As long as E-bay is off-limits, I'm okay with it.

So you're cool with tax evasion?

joejoe, I read the book but it's been awhile. From what I remember there is a sales tax on all goods and services, just like we have a sales tax on goods now. Money is collected by a vendor and then paid to the Feds.

There would be no IRS, no income, property & other taxes, just the sales tax. The more you spend the more you pay.

Denz has a point that a black market can result from this. That was addressed in the book as well but I can't remember it.

Frankly I think the Fair Tax proposal will never happen. There are too many politicians, accountants, and people who don't currently pay taxes who have a vested interest in seeing it doesn't happen.

"There would be no IRS,"

And it would be replaced by a central accounting department that mailed out everybody's dole check every month and tracked dependents in every household. Yay! Free at last!

Do you like the current system Denz? If not, what would you suggest?

As I recall, it is limited to "new" .. so everything new will mysteriously become "used" .. for a penniless .. to avoid the tax.

A say include EVERYTHING .. New, Used, e-Bay, Bartered, Goods, Services .. and it might work.

I would also postpone intermittent manufactured items, so the oil that goes into the plastic that goes into the gizmo .. all without tax UNTIL it becomes a finished product - then it get's the tax. I say postponed to assure gizmos do not remain intermittent items that somehow find their way into final use. That'll take a little thought.

Also fully taxed is everything that comes from off shore .. raw material to finished product. Yea that means a double tax on imported items - once as it enters and a second as it is sold .. but too bad. Maybe the Great Globalizers will have an incentive to prove some allegiance to America .. the country that put them where they are.

What happens when the unemployment rate skyrockets due to the lost jobs with the IRS? What about the devastation to those family's?

While a "fair" tax sounds reasonable, I think it is not very practical. IMHO

Shalom

penny less

I say

gets

The letter writer refers to Joyce Krawiec’s letter of 4/21 advocating a flat tax. He states that a flat tax is not the answer. I agree (see my blog post related to the 4/21/letter at 8:21 PM). However, as I stated earlier, the only thing worse than a flat tax is National Sales Tax which is what the “Fair Tax” bill represents. Advocates of this bill are rich or naïve.

Like the current tax system, allowances are made for those living under the poverty level. The main effect of the tax is to push more of the tax burden onto the middle class. Advocates claim the tax rate would be 23%. Critics say it would be in excess of 30%. This amount would be applied to everything you buy, food, medicine, clothes, new houses and would be in addition to any state sales tax. What do you think a 30% add-on would do for the new housing market? Expect to pay less taxes at retirement due to reduced income? Forget it. You’ll be paying a sales tax on the dog food you’re probably going to be eating. (I hope they get the poison thing cleared up.)

The current tax system applies higher effective tax RATES that increase based on increasing income. This system provides that the wealthy pay a larger percent of tax while the middle class pays a smaller percent (these tax rates for the wealthy were reduced and the tax burden shifted to the middle class under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Some of this higher tax on the middle class was immediate and some will be deferred to the future to pay for the enormous budget deficits). A Flat Tax applies the same tax rate to everyone which shifts taxes from the wealthy onto the middle class. The “Fair Tax” applies the tax to what we spend. The problem is that the wealthy spend a much smaller percent of their income. Most middle class people spend most of their income on essential items necessary for everyday living, maybe 70%. However, if you make $50 million, you might lavishly spend $10 million still have $40 million to invest. Based on this example, the sales tax rate is the same for everyone, but the wealthy individual pays an effective rate on income of 20%, while the poor middle class guy is paying an effective rate of 70%. Remember, the sales tax must produce the same amount of revenue. Simple math dictates that the wealthy gets wealthier and the middle class gets screwed. In addition, the tax would eliminate taxes on capital gains which overwhelmingly benefits the super-wealthy. “Fair Tax” – you be the judge.

Another telling indicator are the advocates of this bill. The Republicans have pushed a Flat or Sales tax for decades. The “Fair Tax” was designed by the organization Americans for Fair Taxation which was funded by three multi-millionaire Houston businessmen who hired their own experts from such organizations as the right wing Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. The “bi-partisan” bill is sponsored by a Republican Congressman from Georgia and co-sponsered by 57 Republicans and one Democrat. The bill is supported by luminaries such as Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay.

Do you think this bill would permanently eliminate loopholes and tax breaks for special interests? If so, you don’t know how the tax system works. Tax laws are almost entirely the result of lobbying and special interests. How many think this will change…raise your hands? As I stated in the earlier blog post – simple is not always best.

"Do you like the current system Denz? If not, what would you suggest?"

Our current system needs an overhaul- that much is certain, but the underlying idea of a progressive tax system is probably the best fit for our society at present- regressive taxation schemes, like LastVOR noted above, screw the poor and middle class- those least likely to be able to afford it.

There's nothing terribly wrong with the current tax system. The richest 10% pay for half of all income tax spending, and the bottom half pay almost nothing. But even at the top, the tax rate isn't confiscatory.

For all the whinging about the 8 billion page tax code, it's not that hard to do your taxes (or pay a couple hundred to have an accountant do it).

Revising the tax code is, IMO, the Republican version of the standard Democratic playbook whereby "O-God-the-world-is-going-to-end-we-have-to-do-something NOW," where "something" isn't really that big a deal and about which, in any event, nothing will be done.

Republicans should spend more time worrying about how to screw the little guy and emit more greenhouse gases.

Voice of Reason: You've convinced me.

Brian:

The richest 10% may pay for half of all income tax spending .. and they have manipulated the system so they own about 90% of everything.

To be exact: The top 1% own more than a third of the United States' total wealth.

Tell me how they got that way - here's a hint: it isn't because they pulled themselves up by thier bootstraps. Who has the better stock broker? You? Who gets the insider tips before they are even insider tips? Can you at any time call your Senator and actually get though? Who did you have linch with last week?

I see no reason the top tax rate shouldn't be 90% for incomes above an arbitrary $10,000,000.

The best Idea I heard about doing taxes is an experiment California has tried where the g-men fill out the forms for you - heck they have all the data anyway. All you have to do is revide and revise as needed and sign. Of course HR Block won't like it.

Why doesn't anybody every thank the top 10% for footing half the tax bill? Or thank the top 400 taxpayers for paying more than the bottom 40 million?

Well, I will: thanks, guys. If you weren't paying it, I'd have to.

If you have tons more money than I do, it's no skin off my nose. Unlike SOME PEOPLE on this forum, I don't walk around cranky all the time on the subject of the means--nefarious or otherwise--by which you obtained your wealth. If you can get through to Elizabeth Dole, more power to ya: I've neither tried nor wanted to.

Thank them for what, Brian? Thank them for having been born into a Blue Blood Family and holding US citizenship and therefore has both the resources and the connections and the laws to take even more? Tell me how they "make" it if you object to the word "take".

They (most) ain't done poop worthy of being thanked. Show me that is wrong.

Monsanto takes the seeds from plants unique to your yard, gets a patent for it, then makes sure you have to buy the seeds from them if you want to grow it again in your yard. Yea .. that's cool. Look it up.

Tell you what Brian: You give me 85% of what you own and I'll pay half your taxes .. and then you can thank me. That's like thanking the rapist for using KY - sure better he used it, but even better had he acted like a human bean in the first place.

sign me .. SOME PEOPLE, and proud of it.

"Thank them for what, Brian? Thank them for having been born into a Blue Blood Family and holding US citizenship and therefore has both the resources and the connections and the laws to take even more? Tell me how they "make" it if you object to the word "take".

They (most) ain't done poop worthy of being thanked. Show me that is wrong."

Feeling a little class envy today JDR? All rich people were born that way and they sit on their money and screw everyone else eh?

Take a look at how much money these eeeevvvviiiilll rich people give in charitable donations:

http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2005/

Interesting that they list the source of the individuals wealth. Only 9 of the 60 had "family wealth" listed, looks like the large majority actually had to earn their wealth JDR. Amazing huh?

I didn't see any Waltons on the list, but Wal-Mart gave $197 million to charity in '03 according to this site.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/2005/11/11/charities-corporations-giving-cx_lm_1114charity.html

Oh, and be sure to look at the top three most generous corporations, all eeeeeevvvvviiiilll pharmaceutical companies. Led by Pfizer, which gave away 21% of it's 2003 earnings to charity.

Nice to see you praise George Soros, Dan.

Oh, here's 2006, 7 of the 60 had money from family wealth. Dang evil, born with a silver spoon billionaires.

http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2006/

Denz, I don't agree with Soro's politics, but I applaud anyone who makes donations to charity.

BTW, Soros went from #4 in '05 with $240.1 million to #31 in '06 with $60 million. Cheapskate :)

How did I know a response like that would be forthcoming?

JDR, I still like the way you think/post!

Shalom

A response like what Darryl? A factual response?

JDR, I do appreciate many of your qualities. Unlike many on the left, you occasionally make sense and almost always try to argue your points using evidence (instead of simply ranting). But on the subject of the very wealthy, you share the common leftist dementia regarding private property. On the subject of the very wealthy, you have all the lucidity of Ahab going after Moby Dick.

How did they get their money? Mostly by starting companies, creating jobs, and building wealth for others. In some cases, their parents or grandparents did this. (See Dan's post above.)

If George Soros is worth X billion dollars and sends Y million to left-wing causes, then fine: BECAUSE IT'S HIS MONEY. Your premise, that all wealth rightly belongs to the government, and rich people cheat them out of it, has been put into practice--to different degrees--in countries from North Korea to France. It doesn't work.

Your suggestion that I give you 85% of what I own misses this point. I own it. It's the private property thing. It's mine.

Like your Lexus SUV. Hypothetically speaking, some people might say that you have no right to own one because of global warming or whatever. (Indeed, it's not really that hypothetical, is it?: there are a lot of leftist Ahabs on the subject of SUVs.) But in fact you do have that right. And you can even buy two more if you want! Again, this gets back to the private property thing.

Once again, driving home in my more modest (and fuel-efficient) Toyota Corolla, I thought of how thankful I was to the very wealthy. In addition to their creation of jobs for the rest of us, they had paid for HALF of the road (the half I was driving on, I think). THANKS AGAIN, RICH PEOPLE! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Dan - I do not have time right now to look at all these - but I'll a couple from memory:

#2 - Bill Gates. Given by his parents the best private schools, including Harvard. Has decided to give most of his wealth to Charity, and has publicly stated his kids will get $10,000,000 and then they are on their own. A great role model.

Not on the List: Walton Family. 5 of the top 10 richest. Done dick for it; giving dick back.

JDR, you are THE MAN!

Shalom

Brian sez: "How did they get their money? Mostly by starting companies, creating jobs, and building wealth for others."

Prove it. You're speaking in very general terms.

"Starting companies" .. fine - but that ain't boo. Creating jobs? Certainly clerks. Building wealth for others? How?

A couple more thoughts, then we're off to the NCSA to see West Side Story:

You asked rhetorically and paraphrased. "If the top 10% didn't footing half the tax bill, I'd have to pay it."

So you think they Volunteered to pay? How naive. They pay it because they have to, and given a choice most would pay none. It's the Helmsley thing: Only the little people pay taxes.

My premise may be all wealth belongs to the government - but the difference is this: in America, unlike North Korea to France - the Government is suppose to be THE PEOPLE. Unfortunately there has been a loss of Government Of and By the People, It is now a Government Of and By Corporations, and you're right - it doesn't work.

My 85% suggestion is EXACTLY the point - I'll discuss it later.

And fwiw - I drive a Hot Lexus Sports Car (not an SUV) around town on the weekends, and to and from work it's a 10 year old Volvo

"#2 - Bill Gates. Given by his parents the best private schools, including Harvard. Has decided to give most of his wealth to Charity, and has publicly stated his kids will get $10,000,000 and then they are on their own. A great role model."

What is wrong with his parents sending him to Harvard? If I had the money I would do the same for my kids.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gates started a company with his intelligence and insight. It became one of the most successful companies on the planet, providing useful products and most likely tens of thousands of well paying jobs.

He has set up the Gates Foundation and gives mucho dinero to it for the good of humankind. His wife is very involved in it, Warren Buffet is donating a majority of his wealth to it as well. They are providing health care services to impoverished people in the third world amongst other activities. Is that a bad thing?

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

His kids will get $10 million, so what? As Brian points out, it's his money. That's a small chunk of change compared to what he is worth. Should he only give them $1 million? $100,000?

Would the world be better off without Bill Gates?

Darryl, you are so overcome with class envy that you cannot answer a simple question, rather all you can offer is "you are the man" and "you speak my mind" tripe. Why don't you speak your own mind for a change?

Why do you express such disdain for others who have achieved more than you? Why do you not appreciate what these people have offered to charity as I've factually illustrated?

Dan, I do speak my mind. When others speak something before I do, there is no need for me to repeat it; thus...."you speak my mind." Unlike you Dan, I do not brag about my possessions, wealth, etc. I live a modest life, giving thanks to the one whom has blessed me to live as I do.

As for class envy, why not say the same for JDR and the others who are basically saing the same things as I? Dan, I believe that what I say really strikes a nerve with you. Were that not the case, you would not seem to really want to single me out for saying the things that I do. Dan, I am NOT intimidated by your arrogance and boasting.

It seems that my simple postings hit home and that does not rest well with you.

JDR has noted excellent points that need not be repeating. I stand with/by him on what has been posted.

And at this point in these blogs I am by you the way I am by a couple of others. When I see your name at a posting, I disregard it because there is generally nothing there that would cause me to desire to read it. To boast about what one has and never give credit where it is due for same is sad. I recall a great teacher saying that where much is given much will be required.

And to you Dan, until things change with you I wish you my final....

Shalom

Brian sez: "How did they get their money? Mostly by starting companies, creating jobs, and building wealth for others."

JDR SEZ: Prove it. You're speaking in very general terms.

Brian sez: Unlike your empirical, specific terms (that the rich all inherited their money and keep it through insider trading)? Look at the list: it's mostly entrepreneurs. QED.

JDR sez: My premise may be all wealth belongs to the government - but the difference is this: in America, unlike North Korea to France - the Government is suppose to be THE PEOPLE.

Brian sez: So in America, THE PEOPLE (as a collective unit and not as individuals) own property? There you have it: you're a communist. You've stated it explicitly: property belongs to the STATE, not to individuals. If you think this works better than America, please visit Cuba and North Korea and get back to me.

You also miss entirely the nature of totalitarianism, which inevitably presents itself as representative of THE PEOPLE (North Korea included). All governments, from the US to North Korea to France, are supposed [sic] to represent the people and do, as a matter of fact, present themselves in this way.

JDR sez: So you think they [the rich] Volunteered to pay? How naive. They pay it because they have to, and given a choice most would pay none. It's the Helmsley thing: Only the little people pay taxes.

Brian sez: The numbers--the flat-out, empirical, statistical, true numbers--say exactly the opposite. The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes. I concede the point that in an alternative universe where everyone chose how much to pay in taxes, few (rich or poor) would actually pay them. I never said otherwise. So what? In the real world, the rich pay most of the taxes (as they should, this getting back to my point that the current tax system is not that bad). I'm thankful that they do, instead of (as your conspiratorial worldview has it) screwing the little guy by calling Libby Dole and having her get them out of paying taxes. Let me clarify here:

The real world: rich pay most taxes.
JDR's dystopian fantasy world: "Only the little people pay taxes."

I look forward to your defense of your 85% solution. You may want to look at Chavez in Venezeula, since he's planning the same sort of thing. I'm sure he has some good reasons for you.

Dan - sorry for not being clear. I was not being sarcastic about Gates, imho he is an EXCELLENT role model.

I was contrasting him with the Walton clan .. Dad does well - the original Wal-Mart motto was "Made in America". Kids have not filled his shoes.

Dan,

got tissues?

"Look at the list: it's mostly entrepreneurs."

Which list? The Charitable contributors list Dan posted -- interesting, huh - especially when contrasted by the list of the most wealthiest peoples .. which I did a study on and posted here a few months ago. It showed of the top ten, two or three actually created wealth through creating jobs. The rest either inherited it, or made it off the stock market money, which I suggest is creating few if any jobs. You want company stock prices to rise? Export the jobs and lay off people.

==

"So in America, THE PEOPLE (as a collective unit and not as individuals) own property?"

No - not as a collective entity. As individuals; you wrongly infer. As I have stated many times - smaller is generally better - local is where it's at.

As a quick example this blog often bitches about the Greir (sp?) School Policy - but he's dealing with an entire county. Wouldn't you rather have control of the actual school you kids go to instead of gping through a maze of lawyers and politicians? Control was given to a higher authority - we ain't talking Jesus - and it'sa mess. Now add to that "No Child Left Behind".

==

Helmsley said "Only the little people pay taxes." I was only quoting.

==

"I look forward to your defense of your 85% solution. You may want to look at Chavez in Venezuela, since he's planning the same sort of thing."

Again you are wrongly infer what I call "local commonwealth" must mean some sort of Big G-man thing. NO. It's a local thing. Recently in the blog and in great detail, I went into local commonwealth thing .. but can't find it right now.

JDR, would it matter if you found that information and posted it again? It seems that the truthful and valid information posted falls on deaf ears.

When some of those people are hit in the proverbial pocketbook and need "public assistance" I hope that I am there....to help pick them up. I doubt that "pulling theirself up by their own bootstraps" will not be as easy as has been stated countless numbers of times.

JDR, thanks for posting the information you have. I have found it informative and helpful.

Shalom

Just finished wiping my eyes Neo. That "you speak my mind" business is hackneyed. Notice the questions go unanswered and all I get is a bit about being arrogant and bragging about my wealth.

Here they are again.

"Why do you express such disdain for others who have achieved more than you? Why do you not appreciate what these people have offered to charity as I've factually illustrated?

Amazing how class envy affects some.

Yawn! Always a bark and no bite!

Dan, keep attacking my Quakerism. That only further supports what is spoken.

Just remember, when you hit bottom to get in touch with me, I will be there to assist you and your family in any way that is possible.

Shalom

"Dan, keep attacking my Quakerism. That only further supports what is spoken."

Huh?

Again I ask a two simple questions and the response is I'm attacking your Quakerism? Can't remember mentioning Quakerism much less attacking it.

One more time try to answer a question:

"Why do you express such disdain for others who have achieved more than you? Why do you not appreciate what these people have offered to charity as I've factually illustrated?

Oh and the other one:

Would the world be better off without Bill Gates?

BTW I don't bite, only sissies do that.

I'm not a Darryl, but did once play that role on TV, in a Holiday Inn Commercial.

I do appreciate those on Dan's list who have given to Charity .. but would also suggest that with rare exception - at least in terms of percentages - the average Joe gives away far more time and money than any of those folks.

imho - A world without Bill Gates would not be a better place. Computers would still be everywhere, but the calm and far thinking humanitarian attitudes expressed and actions taken by both Bill and Melinda would probably never be replicated by other such influential peoples.

The Gates' are one of the rare exceptions noted above - giving to Charity far more in terms of percentage than the average Joe.

Like I said [without sarcasm] - a true role model.

==

As for class envy .. I'm relatively well-to-do (certainly on a world scale) but am far from being anything like truly wealthy. I hope it's just my seeing the world as a much better place were there a greater sense of community - and I see many acts of selfishness - benevolently framed as as "market forces" or "in the name of Jesus [or Allah] [or Jim Jones] [or Red or Blue Partisan] [or ___]" - all sucked up without question of either the sincerity or the wisdom.

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/sample01/wealth-dem.htm

and an opposing view point:

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4458 ... but ya gotta wonder about a critique that includes the line "Even if we grant the assumption that income inequalities are increasing .. "

Even if? Does anyone doubt it? The difference is some folks think the non-wealthy are lazy pumpkins and other folks think the already wealthy may have an innate advantage .. but "Even if ..". Tell me I'm dreaming.

I also wonder about a critique that includes "For one thing, many of our richest citizens are left-leaning." What does that mean - that all left leaners are in the mold of Bill Gates?

Here're three scenarios: Left Leaning super-richers are stupid - witness Tom Cruise. Left Leaning super-richers are smart - they know by feigning left they will not be as heavily criticized as Alice Walton*. Left Leaning super-richers are smarter - they know that by getting Big "G" to support the poor classes, they can continue to rape and plunder without feeling guilty, and if tax rates go from 33% to 36% ... it's doesn't affect their bottom line.

==

*In 1989, Alice Walton killed a 50-year-old pedestrian in an automobile accident in Springdale, Arkansas. Although Walton was speeding, and had been been ticketed multiple times over the previous year for reckless driving incidents, no charges were filed in connection to the 1989 fatality. In 1996, Walton was cited for driving while intoxicated and fined $925.

(a little more dirt, 'cause other wise I gotta get back to work)

When Alice Walton purchased Asher B. Durand's 1849 painting Kindred Spirits. She got the state of Arkansas to pass legislation specifically to save her about $3 million in taxes for the purchase price of $35 million.

FWIW - the price of the painting equals what the state of Arkansas spends every two years in public assistance for Wal-Mart's employees.

“I do appreciate those on Dan’s list who have given to charity..but would also suggest that with rare exception – at least in terms of percentages – the average Joe gives away far more time and money than any of those folks.”

JDR – I agree with your statement. Dan is right that charity should be acknowledged, however, is the generosity of a millionaire who donates 5% of $10 million more generous that the Average Joe who gives 30% of $20,000? I’m not a bible scholar by any means, but didn’t Jesus say something to the effect that the penny given to God by the widow was far more blessed than the donation of the wealthy dude who made a show of giving a large amount, because she had given all she had?

There are many who feel that welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, overseas aid for HIV, malnutrition, and the many other things the Government does for the poor (without getting into a big thread about the small percentage of abuse in these programs), should be the purview of charitable organizations. This would include organizations like the foundations of individuals (Bill Gates, Paul Newman, etc.), faith based programs, churches, etc. The reason this would never work is that no one, Daddy Warbucks or Average Joe, is going to give enough voluntarily (in addition to what they now give to charity) to makeup what would be required to make up for what the Government does to care for the poor.

Getting back to the subject of the letter, this is why we have a graduated income tax, so that those able to pay more are required to do so. This is another reason a flat tax or national sales “Fair” tax is advocated so much by the wealthy. So, I do appreciate the charity of the wealthy, the charity of the Average Joe, and to the widow who gave everything.

Generally Agree, VOR - but have a nag that insists that while many earn large fortunes doing good things, many others earn large fortunes just by taking. Two quick examples:

As a silly example: Fox (the movie people) wanted Elizabeth Taylor to play Cleopatra. In an apparent flippant remark, she said "Tell them I'd do it for a million dollars" - which was a lot of money in 1962. Fox foolishly agreed, and the game was on. Her contract stipulated "$125,000 for 16 weeks work plus $50,000 a week afterwards plus 10% of the gross (with no break-even point). Her ultimate take for the film was $7 million". That's $45,558,720 in today money, with no responsibility to even make a good movie.

Another example: Ever read the Corporate Proxy Statement you're sent to help you cast your vote? It's usually three things: One is xyz as an accounting firm. Two is a list of board members they recommend. Three is some vague think about treating people well; follow #3. Typically is says good folks are hard to find and they need to be well compensated; then you realize they are talking exclusively about the board members.

One more related example. We often hear that CEO's are well compensated because that's what the market demands, but when one company pays more to lore a good one, the next company has a higher bar to leap for their next CEO .. and it escalates to forever. All sense is gone, it's a game.

My kids play games too: "Mommy said / Daddy said" is a favorite, but that doesn't mean I have to like it .. nor pay along.

" .... but didn’t Jesus say something to the effect that the penny given ... by the widow [giving all she had] was far more blessed than the donation of the wealthy dude who made a show of giving a large amount ... "?

Critical words that make the difference: "made a show of giving".