quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

 
And borrow trillions from the Saudis(culprits in 9/11) and from the Chinese to cover the loss in tax revenues.The way the present Bush plan does.

Then push that debt down the road so far you`ll be dead by the time piper gets paid.

Brilliant!

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

2. Flat tax for individuals. Pick a percentage--10%, 15%--and everyone pays that amount. Exempt the first X dollars of gross income from taxation. Exempt Health Savings Accounts and retirement savings. Everything else gets taxed at the flat rate.

quote:

At a minimum, the flat tax would be 30%.

Congratulations. You've just added 30% to the purchase price of every house and car, and apartment/home rental. How's that for a disincentive to consumer spending?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

At a minimum, the flat tax would be 30%.

Congratulations. You've just added 30% to the purchase price of every house and car, and apartment/home rental. How's that for a disincentive to consumer spending?

Ummm.....no. You are disingenuously conflating flat tax (which applies to income) to ad valorem taxes, which apply to consumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

If you are a manufacturer and get parts off shore, if there is a US based supplier willing and ready, the cost savings derived from using an outside source are directly taxed as income. Yes that would mean double taxation. This ONLY applies when there are viable US sources for these components.

I am not sure, but I think that since this tax is levied directly on the US firm, it would not be considered a tariff or anything of the sort.  Therefore it should not violate any treaties. Although I could be wrong.

However tough times demand tough action. This government has employed more draconian methods in the past, for that exact reason, or implied reason.

Taxes have been used for social engineering for a long time as well so that's nothing new. If these people are going to be able to afford another ivory backscratcher by costing many their livelyhood, I think they should pay.

Is it fair ? They never promised you a rose garden. Many countries do this, offer incentives to stay as well as disincentives to outsource to foreigners. This is nothing new.

This has nothing to do with the individual income tax which I will not even bring up at this time. These are corporations and without the government they would be pretty much nothing.

So, as long as they don't outsource anything that can be sourced in the US, they pay nothing, nothing more than normal taxes.

To be fair I would give a one year's notice before enacting it. Also there would be a burden of proof that if they made a good faith effort but there were other reasons to outsource, a deduction or defferment at least would be available. This would come into play if, for example the US made parts had too many defects or something like that. In other words, problems other than price.

New taxes almost always are a bad idea, but when you just tax certain things it is different. This is taxing something that is killing our economy, how different is that than the ridiculous taxes on cigarettes ? If they taxed food like they tax cigarettes most people wouldn't be eating.

If nothing else it's far better than a general tax increase, and let's face it, over the next few years we are going to need some serious revenue. The only way to do it is to expand the tax base. It's like they almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg. This would be one way to help nurse it back to health.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

At a minimum, the flat tax would be 30%.

Congratulations. You've just added 30% to the purchase price of every house and car, and apartment/home rental. How's that for a disincentive to consumer spending?

Ummm.....no. You are disingenuously conflating flat tax (which applies to income) to ad valorem taxes, which apply to consumption.

Ah I see.  You're not talking about the so-called "FairTax", but rather changing our current income tax brackets.

This approach shifts the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and the poor.  This is a "better plan" how, exactly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

It's better because there are structurally fewer loopholes to game the system, and similarly greater predictability and clarity on what someone's tax obligation will be year to year. With a single tax rate, it is easier to eliminate the hodgepodge of loopholes the current graduated system encourages.

quote:


It's better because it is simpler.

quote:


It's better because it does not penalize people who commit the sin of being successful.

quote:


You don't build an economy or create jobs or do anything positive for people by demonizing the notion of wealth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

The problem with your flat-tax idea is that the rich benefit more from government services than the poor do.  The great "victory" of conservatism over the past thirty years has been to convince the American electorate otherwise.  But I think times are changing.  People didn't give a shit as long as they could afford gas and camcorders.

quote:

Name ONE loophole "the current graduated system encourages". One. Any one--you have at least two to pick from, since you spoke in the plural.

quote:

You really think rich people wouldn't seek out tax loopholes under a flat tax? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

You really think rich people wouldn't seek out tax loopholes under a flat tax? Really?

Of course they would seek them out. However, the loopholes would be a lot harder to justify, a lot harder to sustain politically, and a lot harder to bury in the tax code.

quote:


EVERY loophole and tax avoidance scheme is because higher incomes are taxed more than lower incomes.

quote:


You can argue the "fairness" of the current tax code all day long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

The problem with your flat-tax idea is that the rich benefit more from government services than the poor do.  The great "victory" of conservatism over the past thirty years has been to convince the American electorate otherwise.  But I think times are changing.  People didn't give a shit as long as they could afford gas and camcorders.

I'm in favor of axing most government services as well. There's damn little that government should be doing, and in general anything that government argues it "ought" to be doing, it very likely should not be doing at all.