Thread: The strongest economy in the world

Originally Posted by stroller

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).

Are you having trouble reading today?

I said that there should be income tax, but at ONE RATE FOR EVERYBODY because those who earn more automatically pay more.

I was referring to progressive taxation, sorry if this wasn't clear.
I doubt there'd be enough tax-income with the same rate for everyone to keep a high quality of services. Even most conservatives agree with progressive taxation, but squibble about the percentages.

Originally Posted by surasak

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

In most cases it would (might) prove your point. But in many cases the mortgage is so low it's less than the standard deduction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the standard dedection isn't based on income ... it's factored on whether you're single, married and how many dependents you have ?

But itemized deductions are based on income. Standard deductions usually apply for those whose income level is too low to itemize because you can't get back more than you pay unless it's a credit (like child care, EIC, etc.)

Originally Posted by stroller

I was referring to progressive taxation, sorry if this wasn't clear.

No. It wasn't clear at all.

Originally Posted by stroller

I doubt there'd be enough tax-income with the same rate for everyone to keep a high quality of services.

I believe in less services anyway (see the ism thread I think).

I believe that those who can afford it should have to pay for their own healthcare and contribute to private pensions.

^ I agree as well, there are far too many roles that the government assumes and should not, thus, resulting in higher spending than necessary. Take social security schemes, for one.

Originally Posted by stroller

^
^
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.

Consumption tax is a better idea. For example, taxes on gasoline or diesel pay for road construction and maintenance. Taxes on land pay for fire, police, and schools. Etc.

There's no need for income tax. Raise the revenue elsewhere. Taxing income is akin to slavery if part of your earnings automatically go to the government.

Especially if you get fuck all for it.

Well speaking from the perspective of an American we pay several taxes on income. There's the Federal Income Tax. Then there's Social Security Tax of 12.4% (they split it 50% from the worker and 50% from the employer...you pay all if you're self-employed). Then there's the tax on income at the Federal level to pay for Medicare. And, if you live in most states, there's the income tax at the state level as well. The whole scam about income taxes is that by taking out the taxes first it keeps peolpe from really seeing how much is stolen by the government each year. If you paid as you go (i.e. a consumption tax or sales tax) my feeling is that people would really see how much is being taken from them and it would alarm them. The government taxes money each week, month, or quarterly and you have to ask them to give it back if you paid too much. By taking the money first without giving you the chance to invest it and turn it into more the government is essentially requiring that you work up to 1/3 of the entire year for free to finance someone else's program.

That's not how it should be. Income should be tax free and if you spend it then you should pay tax at that point. Peolpe who save and don't spend aren't going to be much of a burden on the government and so should be rewarded this way.

I also oppose the mandatory acts that take money from payroll and put it into a government operated retirement account. I have yet to see any government program that returned a higher return than private investments. If I could invest my Social Security funds myself into my own investments I could end up with $100,000 or MORE at retirement than I might get back from the government.

Let's cut the bullshit, get rid of income taxes, and let the public really see how bad the burden of unncessary government is by paying as we go.

Originally Posted by surasak

But itemized deductions are based on income. Standard deductions usually apply for those whose income level is too low to itemize because you can't get back more than you pay unless it's a credit (like child care, EIC, etc.)

You're right about itemized deductions (Schedule A). You're wrong about the standard deduction. The standard deduction for 2005:

* Single or marrried filing separately: $ 4,850
* Married filing jointly: $ 9,700
* Head of household: $ 7,150

This is based on filing status and has nothing to do with income.

Look at the Form 1040 ... line 41 ... the standard deduction even applies to those making $107,025 per year. If that's a low income to you then you're probably in the top 1% of posters in this forum.

The point is, you'd be free to take risks with your own investment and might lose it all, the other concept at play here is that we are not isolated individuals in our own space, but live in our nation as part of the community, so national pension schemes are a way of supporting the previous working generation in their retirement, whereas we will be supported by our childrens generation.
And yes, this system needs to be adjusted for demoghraphic reasons now.

Stroller,

I support the current SS system and think everything possible should be done to keep the program solvent. Like it or not the original intent is gone but the program has evolved to the point in the US that most look at it as their retirement plan ... and that's good enough for them.

But I don't think the rich should have their asses chafed to support the program or any other social program.

And poor people shouldn't be having more kids than they can afford to raise and the rich shouldn't be squeezed for anything more than their equal fair share.

That doesn't mean we should squeeze corporations or conglomerates though ...

Bushonomics

By Matt Margolis

President Bush talked about the economy yesterday, and there were plenty of good things to say about it... the federal deficit is being cut faster than expected, and should be cut in half by 2009. We've seen 18 quarters of growth. To put it simply, "The tax cuts we passed work."

Still, in the media, stories about job creation often refer to the numbers as "weak" or lower than expected... Never mind the fact that since Bush got us out the recession, we've seen nothing but growth. But there's more to the story than that... An editorial in the Wall Street Journal notes that while the media labeled the 121,000 jobs created last month as a disappointment, "the labor report shows remarkable strength."

The unemployment rate stayed at a very low 4.6%, despite the addition of 330,000 new entrants into the labor market. The jobless rate is determined by another separate measure called the "household survey," which found that 387,000 new jobs were created in June after increasing by 288,000 in May. Both surveys have their uses, but the household survey captures self-employment that the business survey doesn't.
Economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners notes that averaging the two surveys yields a gain of close to 250,000 jobs in June, "which is much closer to the reality of America's very tight labor market." Meanwhile, the increase in total hours worked in June was itself the equivalent of a half-million new jobs. And the number of Americans who have been without a job for more than six months sank by 217,000 in June to its lowest level in more than five years. The average jobless spell is now less than six weeks.

Now, what about the left-wing myth that all the jobs being created are burger flipping jobs? Well, no one really has believed that, but, as the editorial notes, the jobs people are getting are good jobs with good wages. And speaking of wages, the went up "4.6% in this year's second quarter, the fastest quarterly pace since 1997."

The Bush economy is a good economy, no matter how much the Democrats and their allies in the media pretend it isn't. Still, I expect that the next time a jobs report comes out saying we've experiencec even more job growth the Democrats will still call that the "wrong direction."

What about the EEENNNOOORRRMMMOOOUUUSSSS debt spaz???

Originally Posted by Covertjay

What about the EEENNNOOORRRMMMOOOUUUSSSS debt spaz???

Not really a problem. Could easily be wiped out in a couple of years.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Covertjay

What about the EEENNNOOORRRMMMOOOUUUSSSS debt spaz???

Not really a problem. Could easily be wiped out in a couple of years.

It hasn't gone the right way in over a hundred years, so why do you think it could be wiped out in a couple of years?

U.S. Govt Debt US$ billions
1910 2.6
1920 25.9
1930 16.2
1940 43.0
1950 257.4
1960 290.2
1970 389.2
1980 930.2
1990 3,233.3
2000 5,674.2
2005 7,932.7

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

It hasn't gone the right way in over a hundred years, so why do you think it could be wiped out in a couple of years?

1. Raise taxes, especially on guys like Gates and Buffet
2. Cut the Defense budget
3. Use some of Snaffie's creative accounting 101 techniques.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

But itemized deductions are based on income. Standard deductions usually apply for those whose income level is too low to itemize because you can't get back more than you pay unless it's a credit (like child care, EIC, etc.)

You're right about itemized deductions (Schedule A). You're wrong about the standard deduction. The standard deduction for 2005:

* Single or marrried filing separately: $ 4,850
* Married filing jointly: $ 9,700
* Head of household: $ 7,150

This is based on filing status and has nothing to do with income.

Look at the Form 1040 ... line 41 ... the standard deduction even applies to those making $107,025 per year. If that's a low income to you then you're probably in the top 1% of posters in this forum.

No, what I meant was that low income filers can't qualify for itemized deductions because the tax burden isn't high enough. Thus the standard deduction is better for them.

Originally Posted by surasak

No, what I meant was that low income filers can't qualify for itemized deductions because the tax burden isn't high enough. Thus the standard deduction is better for them.

OK. I understand now. Thanks for your patience.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

It hasn't gone the right way in over a hundred years, so why do you think it could be wiped out in a couple of years?

1. Raise taxes, especially on guys like Gates and Buffet
2. Cut the Defense budget
3. Use some of Snaffie's creative accounting 101 techniques.

You are a cad, Sailor Boy!

Originally Posted by stroller

The point is, you'd be free to take risks with your own investment and might lose it all, the other concept at play here is that we are not isolated individuals in our own space, but live in our nation as part of the community, so national pension schemes are a way of supporting the previous working generation in their retirement, whereas we will be supported by our childrens generation.
And yes, this system needs to be adjusted for demoghraphic reasons now.

I should be the one to choose the retirement plan that's right for me...not the government. If I don't want to pay gasoline tax I simply don't drive. But I cannot choose not to pay into mandatory retirement without threat of prison or other penalties. I am not my brother's keeper and neither is he mine.

It's immoral to forcibly take my earnings and hand it over to someone else and prevent me from possibly even getting my money back if the ponzi scheme fails (which in all likelihood it will before I can get a chance to get anything back). The other option to keep it solvent is to raise taxes. Great, that reduces my ability to save for my retirement.

If you want to help people in retirement then give them free housing, medical, and necessities. Don't give them cash.

Sometimes it makes sense to go into debt...for example, if an opportunity to make money presents itself and the profit potential exceeds the cost of borrowing money then by all means go into debt.

But are we getting more than we are losing out of continually piling up the debt in the US? I don't think so. And it's quickly getting out of control.