Thread: The strongest economy in the world

If Kerry and Gore are the best the Democrats can do it's no wonder they lost when a successor to Clinton should have been a shoo-in. But, remember how the Dems lost Congress in 1994?

Kerry lost because people couldn't trust him. When it comes to a choice between one liar and another people tend to choose the one they know.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ VAT is a better tax

But wealth tax are also needed. If you are very rich, you owe back to society. Blowing money on coke, hookers and cars doesn't cut it.

...which would naturally go back due to the amount that the wealthy spend on things.

Under a simple tax scheme all tax shelters would be eliminated. All sales of goods (house, stock, land, etc) would result in payment of tax (save for basic necessities like food, medicine, etc). The poor would get a break if they showed they earned under a determined sum per year.

Originally Posted by surasak

But, remember how the Dems lost Congress in 1994?

Let me see ... what did Clinton do ? It was something that agitated the voters about the Democrats ? I'm guessing it was either health care reform or the free trade agreement. Which ? Since you are a small bidness owner ... it must have been NAFTA ?

I think it was many things: the massive retroactive tax hike; the meddling of Hillary with her attempts at a health care plan; the NRA (with the passing of the bill making certain firearms, clips, etc. illegal); the massacre in Waco; the infidelity, etc.

Clinton won the first time because it was perceived that Bush, Sr. was out of touch with ordinary people. Clinton won the second time because the country was doing well and people don't tend to sack incumbents when things are OK. Clinton was pretty lucky the internet came along to create millions of jobs, otherwise, I suspect he would have been a one-termer.

Let's not also forget that there really wasn't a budget surplus under Clinton. It was more tricky accounting that made it seem that way.

The real question is: can we sustain the building government debt? Iraq is going to cost each person in the U.S. $2,000 and we aren't even complete. It only makes sense to borrow money if the ability to earn more is at stake (i.e. borrowing money for a house make sense because houses tend to increase in value more than the total cost of borrowing).

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If you are very rich, you owe back to society.

Why?

So people with the balls to make something of themselves owe to those that haven't?

I never could work this one out.

In a nutshell: because you're part of a community, and whatever you make your profit with, you've been supported by that community, be it through education, facilities or actual people working for you.

exactly, you didn't become rich out of your ass or without existing infrastructure. You use existing resources in pursue of your wealth, those resources were available to you thanks to an organized society. It's like a mafia type system. You have to pay back your peers for the business opportunities they offered you.

How much tax do you pay, then, Buttrfly?

But why should you pay back it back at a much higher tax rate than some lazy arsed tosser who can't be bothered to make a go of things?

As someone else said, people with more money will pay more taxes as they tend to spend more. I can understand successful people using offshore bank accounts and sneaky accountants to stop the leeches of society grabbing their hard earned money.

Don't get me wrong, people who carry out business like Taksin does, deserve to be stripped of their wealth, especially as it is people like him who abuse their priviledged position in society for their own personal gains, but the honest businessman should be taxed at the same rate as anyone else.

Where is the money to build the roads to speed along in your Jag gonna come from, then?

What business are you in, btw, or are you a TEFLer indulging in imaginary scenarios?

I don't see anyone saying that there should be no taxes. The argument is over where the taxes should come from and at what percentage. I happen to think that taxing income is immoral. Tax consumption, the wealthy surely consume more than the poor, don't they? So where's the beef?

^ I think a progressive tax system is not that bad. I mean how many yacht or houses do you need ? It's just a question of scale, maybe a 10% difference in tax between rich and poor would be sufficient. However politically it doesn't look good, and that's difference is much bigger. Let's face it, everyone hates the very rich, so we shouldn't feel sorry for them. They have more than enough.

Equality for everybody but the rich ? What is wrong with a flat tax for everybody ? Why should the rich pay more ? I think the problem is that the rich find to may loopholes to exploit ... and both the Democrats and Republicans let them get away with it. There is no way you're going to motivate the wealthy to invest more in the US infrastructure if you're going to tax them out of business.

I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family. I kinda think estate tax should be very high for the rich ... I'm not sure on that one.

"The economy and federal revenues are growing at such a rapid rate that the deficit will shrink in the short term, President Bush's chief budget official says . . . . Rob Portman . . . said the president's economic policies have led to exceptional economic growth, which has in turn led to bulging federal receipts."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3902-1077r.htm

^ You have to look long term.

^ long term ? who cares !!! it's all party time for now as long as it lasts

Originally Posted by stroller

Where is the money to build the roads to speed along in your Jag gonna come from, then?

Err, taxes. Can't you read?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

President Bush's chief budget official says . . . . Rob Portman

A nice unbiased view then.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family.

Gates said that he wasn't going to leave all his wealth to his kids. They're still going to get more than all of us put together will make in a lifetime.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ I think a progressive tax system is not that bad. I mean how many yacht or houses do you need ? It's just a question of scale, maybe a 10% difference in tax between rich and poor would be sufficient. However politically it doesn't look good, and that's difference is much bigger. Let's face it, everyone hates the very rich, so we shouldn't feel sorry for them. They have more than enough.

But how can a society treat one person unfairly based on wealth? A prosperous and just society should treat all the same. The person buying those additional houses, yachts, etc. is still going to pay a lot of tax but at least is the same percentage as everyone else. If the person spends more then it's not the fault of anyone else, so, no complaints. I disagree with graduated tax schemes as it's not fair to those at the bottom of a tax bracket since they end up paying more than those at the top of the bracket below them.

Make it fair and make everyone over a certain amount pay the same percent on purchases.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I think the problem is that the rich find to may loopholes to exploit ... and both the Democrats and Republicans let them get away with it.

I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family. I kinda think estate tax should be very high for the rich ... I'm not sure on that one.

Loopholes exist for one reason: to lower the burden of an unfair tax system. And the loopholes aren't good unless one earns enough to use them. So the loopholes themselves are unfair. Couple that with homefare (the condition where the government subsidizes home purchases by allowing tax write-offs of interest on home loans) and you end up with an unbalanced system.

I think estate taxes are immoral. If I'm poor (which I was when I was born) and work hard and save money for my children why should the government take part of that? I already paid tax on my income so why should it be taxed again when I die?

Originally Posted by surasak

Couple that with homefare (the condition where the government subsidizes home purchases by allowing tax write-offs of interest on home loans) and you end up with an unbalanced system.

This is kind of not true. Many people with mortgages don't qualify for the tax write off if it's less than the standard deduction. Speaking from experience.

Originally Posted by surasak

A prosperous and just society should treat all the same

but there is a logic flaw here in your argument. You assume we should all be treated equally. If we were, we would all be rich and pay the same amount of tax. Since this is not the case, to equalize everybody, the rich pay more to pay for social benefits for those unlucky ones. The alternatives would be to throw all those poors out in the forrest, but I don't think it would work.

It's not about being "treated" fairly, but about "contributing" fairly.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

but there is a logic flaw here in your argument. You assume we should all be treated equally. If we were, we would all be rich and pay the same amount of tax.

That is simply not true. Some people are not going to get 'rich' because they are not as intelligent, lucky, driven, have the right aquaintances or many other reasons. We deserve to be treated equally and given equal opportunities, but at the end of the day, people are not equal in their abilities, their desires or their drive.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

Couple that with homefare (the condition where the government subsidizes home purchases by allowing tax write-offs of interest on home loans) and you end up with an unbalanced system.

This is kind of not true. Many people with mortgages don't qualify for the tax write off if it's less than the standard deduction. Speaking from experience.

That illustrates my point. You can't get it because you don't earn enough, but, someone else does because their income is higher.

So, get rid of the deduction all together. There's no excuse why a tax form should be large than a postcard.

^
^
That's right. So why should people be assumed to be equal when it comes to taxation?
Income-based taxation is a straightforward way to treat people according to their different status and abilities etc. to get the money to pay for those public amenities etc. (well, that's the theory of it).

Otherwise you may as well move to Nigeria, for example. The state won't bother too much to "steal" from your income, you'll be able to spend it all on the latest mercedes - pity there aren't any roads suitable for anything but a 4-wheel drive, every car owner with enough land is free to build their own roads with their low-taxed income.

Originally Posted by surasak

I think estate taxes are immoral. If I'm poor (which I was when I was born) and work hard and save money for my children why should the government take part of that? I already paid tax on my income so why should it be taxed again when I die?

I believe the non-taxed allowance is quite high for this?
It's taxed as it becomes someone else's income when it is passed on.

Almost all money is taxed every time it changes hands. For example, when you buy something, this money has been taxed already when you received it, now there's a sales tax (VAT) on it, the profit the storeowner keeps will be taxed again as their income.