How's this as part of a tax plan ?

How's this as part of a tax plan ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Termyn8or -> How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 9:50:15 AM)
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

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 10:13:15 AM)
Here's a better tax plan: 1. Eliminate corporate income tax entirely. If corporations pay dividends, the stockholders pay regular income tax on those amounts. If corporations don't pay dividends, either through savings or direct investment that money gets plowed back into the economy. Everyone wins. 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. 3. Eliminate payroll taxes for Social Security. It's a government pension, so if we're going to have it, fund it like any other government program. If we don't want to fund it, eliminate it. Payroll taxes are regressive and distort the true cost of workers.

Owner59 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 10:52:24 AM)
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!

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 11:19:09 AM)
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! Well, the other side of it would be to ban deficit spending. No more borrowing. Ever. Slice spending until it matches tax receipts. Use the big knife and a large axe as needed. Debt is for suckers.

Cagey18 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 12:16:47 PM)
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. 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?

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 12:30:55 PM)
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. Further, claiming that the tax would "have" to be any percentage "at a miminum" is hogwash. There is no mandatory "minimum" tax rate. The tax rate would be whatever the tax rate would be--there would be X amount of revenue flowing into government coffers, and government would be charged with allocating those funds among competing spending priorities. You could peg the tax rate at 1% and it would still work. Government would have a whole lot less money to work with under that scenario, but people would have a lot more money to pump into the economy. If you want more government, yes, you would push the tax rate higher. Myself, I want little or no government. Government is at best a bloody nuisance, at worst an unmitigated evil. Pushing tax rates lower would force government to limit itself.

Cagey18 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 12:40:52 PM)
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?

variation30 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 12:48:13 PM)
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 dear god that's a horrible idea. whenever you hear of the 'robber barons' of the 19ths century who achieved monopolies and could do whatever they wanted with their workers/prices...it was because of similar policies as you are suggesting. US Sugar/ US Steel was more or less given a monopoly by the government by taxing imports to the point to where they could no longer compete. competition keeps prices low and quality high. if american producers can't compete, they should either take steps to be more competitive or they should fail and lose all of their money. they should NOT be propped up by a government as we're the ones that suffer for your self-righteousness. if you want to have americans keep their jobs, then you should support aboloshing minimum wage/aboloshing unions' state backed power.

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 12:54:22 PM)
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? I am talking about a single tax rate for all tax payers. 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. It's better because it is simpler. It's better because it does not penalize people who commit the sin of being successful. You don't build an economy or create jobs or do anything positive for people by demonizing the notion of wealth. Some people go to great lengths to deny that basic reality, but they can't escape being wrong.

Lordandmaster -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 12:59:56 PM)
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.

Cagey18 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 1:09:27 PM)
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. You clearly have no notion of tax loopholes or our current graduated system. 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: It's better because it is simpler. Non sequitur. quote: It's better because it does not penalize people who commit the sin of being successful. Already addressed this. Your approach benefits the rich, and penalizes the middle class and poor. quote: You don't build an economy or create jobs or do anything positive for people by demonizing the notion of wealth. Amazing, isn't it, how our current "demonizing" system hasn't stopped so many from trying to become more wealthy.

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 1:18:37 PM)
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.

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 1:35:12 PM)
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. Pick your favorite real estate "investment". Or short vs long term capital gains. Or presumed "farm" income. These are all financial games people play to minimize their taxes--to LEGALLY minimize their taxes. With the tax system as it is, it's only fitting people engage in such gaming of the system, because who would rationally choose to pay more, given another option? When certain types/levels of income are taxed unequally, you encourage people to manipulate their finances, not in response to economic variables, but in response to a potential tax burden. A single tax rate applied across the board makes the tax burden value neutral regarding economic activity.

Cagey18 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 1:44:52 PM)
Apparently you misunderstood the question. I didn't say "name a tax loophole". I said "Name one that the current graduated system encourages" You really think rich people wouldn't seek out tax loopholes under a flat tax? Really? So whenever you want to show me a tax loophole that is due to the current system, I'm all ears.

celticlord2112 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 1:47:50 PM)
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. EVERY loophole and tax avoidance scheme is because higher incomes are taxed more than lower incomes. They are, by their very nature, a distortion of the marketplace, and thus are economically damaging. You can argue the "fairness" of the current tax code all day long--you won't get one inch away from dead wrong.

pahunkboy -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 1:49:31 PM)
the argument is ... well, meaningless. the presumption is that we can ever repay the debt. it also neglects that the value or curency is fluid, and one day soon will make pretty firewood. lets say, I share my choclolate bar with all the posters so far. then we decide T ought to get an extra peice... and suppose he makes us view his having an extra peice as necessary and if not- then none of us get any of the candy. but now- T, has some friends who also want candy. So they arrive and everyone is pretty exicited that we are enjoyibg the goodness of candy and we are about to have a portion for ourself. before you know it- people start to worry that they will share in the joy of candy. so they start grabbing. ....that is where we are at today. the candy is about to be detroyed and no longer consumable my god we all want it. it is good and makes life nice. but now T says if you give me your peice now, then i will give you 4 peices next time. and I say ill give you a 4th of a peice now- if you give me a whole peice next week. Sue then realizes that she still owes T a peice from last time. so in short- people like good things. ?

Cagey18 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 2:12:55 PM)
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. Now you're changing your tune. Before you said, "When certain types/levels of income are taxed unequally, you encourage people to manipulate their finances, not in response to economic variables, but in response to a potential tax burden." Make up your mind. quote: EVERY loophole and tax avoidance scheme is because higher incomes are taxed more than lower incomes. Asserting this a second time doesn't make it true. Again...whenever you want to show me a tax loophole that is due to the current system, I'm all ears. quote: You can argue the "fairness" of the current tax code all day long. And I was "arguing" this where, exactly?

Lordandmaster -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 2:18:06 PM)
Right--no police, no fire prevention, no street paving, no law courts, and above all no enforcement. We don't need any of that superfluous stuff. Let's deregulate everything! Only in Neverneverland do people live without government services. And the point is that the rich benefit more from these services than the poor. 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.

Cagey18 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 2:19:33 PM)
Well said, L&M!

Owner59 -> RE: How's this as part of a tax plan ? (11/25/2008 2:47:24 PM)
Our system of laws and infrastructure,public education and social safety net,police/fireman/EMTs, provide the stable and sustainable environment in which commerce can operate. There`s plenty of examples worldwide, of countries with next to no services and next to no tax to pay.It`s called the 3rd world. If our system is so bad,move there. And good luck.I hear Somalia is a tax free zone.[8D]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875