The negative income tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2014, 02:19 AM
RE: The negative income tax
(24-03-2014 01:40 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 12:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Raise the minimum wage to a yearly self-adjusting living wage and stop giving billions away in tax subsidies that allow the wealthiest corporations to pay no taxes. Fucking seriously, I paid more taxes last year from the sales tax on a single Big Mac than did Boeing Aerospace and General Electric combined over the last 5 years, and that is bullshit. So how about we focus on those who have the most already, instead of seeing how to best kneecap those who already have the least?




Personally, the whole idea of a corporate tax is goofy to me. I don't agree that corporate income should be subject to taxation.

In your example McDonald's sells me a Big Mac. That revenue helps to pay salaries, materials and corporate profit. The salaries are subject to more taxation at the corporate level and then are taxable to the worker as income tax. The money used to pay for materials eventually makes its way to another company which is taxed again. The corporate profit may be distributed to shareholders which is then again taxed at the personal level of the shareholder.

To me the simplest method is a vat tax at the consumer level. In that scenario, lower income drives theoretically lower consumption and thus lower tax. Plus it is simpler to administer and we can toss the tax code out the window.

Unfortunately, this eliminates an income source from our elected representatives who make money at the corporate trough as our government decides which industries to penalize and which to promote through "tax breaks", "tax credits" and simple "taxes".

The problem with that is it seems to me that it hits hardest those with the least already. Everyone needs a bare minimum to survive, in food, fuel, housing, clothing, etc. So if you make pure consumerism the primary tax source, you're further shifting the tax burden even further onto the poorest of Americans who already have the least. Those millionaire and billionaire CEO's aren't spending their money buying millions of pairs of pants for themselves. They have as many pants as everyone else, possibly a little more, but not by orders of magnitude as indicated by their inflated salaries. The vast majority of the taxes will still come form regular folk trying to make ends meet. The richest 1% do not consume enough to justify their hoarding of 90% of the wealth. It just sits there, making even more money for them; it doesn't go back into the economy, it doesn't get circulated, it doesn't generate business, it doesn't get taxed.

There are things that can be done to correct the current system. Fix the lopsided taxing; finances should be taxed more than labor, not less. End government subsidies to billion dollar international corporations, that in turn hide their income revenue oversees so that it cannot be taxed here. Establish a federal minimum living wage that adjusts automatically every year. It is consumers that drive the economy. Trickle down economics is just that, 'trickle down'; and I'm tired of the American people being pissed on for over 3 decades and counting. The american people and the government who is supposed to be representing them are more powerful and have far more leverage than they think, and if they'd only realize that and stand up for themselves we'd all be better off. Nothing is improved by whoring ourselves out to Wall Street and corporations; nothing but short term gains for the wealthiest while the rest of us are left holding the bucket when things collapse.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-03-2014, 02:54 AM
RE: The negative income tax
(25-03-2014 02:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 01:40 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Personally, the whole idea of a corporate tax is goofy to me. I don't agree that corporate income should be subject to taxation.

In your example McDonald's sells me a Big Mac. That revenue helps to pay salaries, materials and corporate profit. The salaries are subject to more taxation at the corporate level and then are taxable to the worker as income tax. The money used to pay for materials eventually makes its way to another company which is taxed again. The corporate profit may be distributed to shareholders which is then again taxed at the personal level of the shareholder.

To me the simplest method is a vat tax at the consumer level. In that scenario, lower income drives theoretically lower consumption and thus lower tax. Plus it is simpler to administer and we can toss the tax code out the window.

Unfortunately, this eliminates an income source from our elected representatives who make money at the corporate trough as our government decides which industries to penalize and which to promote through "tax breaks", "tax credits" and simple "taxes".

The problem with that is it seems to me that it hits hardest those with the least already. Everyone needs a bare minimum to survive, in food, fuel, housing, clothing, etc. So if you make pure consumerism the primary tax source, you're further shifting the tax burden even further onto the poorest of Americans who already have the least. Those millionaire and billionaire CEO's aren't spending their money buying millions of pairs of pants for themselves. They have as many pants as everyone else, possibly a little more, but not by orders of magnitude as indicated by their inflated salaries. The vast majority of the taxes will still come form regular folk trying to make ends meet. The richest 1% do not consume enough to justify their hoarding of 90% of the wealth. It just sits there, making even more money for them; it doesn't go back into the economy, it doesn't get circulated, it doesn't generate business, it doesn't get taxed.

There are things that can be done to correct the current system. Fix the lopsided taxing; finances should be taxed more than labor, not less. End government subsidies to billion dollar international corporations, that in turn hide their income revenue oversees so that it cannot be taxed here. Establish a federal minimum living wage that adjusts automatically every year. It is consumers that drive the economy. Trickle down economics is just that, 'trickle down'; and I'm tired of the American people being pissed on for over 3 decades and counting. The american people and the government who is supposed to be representing them are more powerful and have far more leverage than they think, and if they'd only realize that and stand up for themselves we'd all be better off. Nothing is improved by whoring ourselves out to Wall Street and corporations; nothing but short term gains for the wealthiest while the rest of us are left holding the bucket when things collapse.

[Image: 1926685_10152348804747722_59489766_n.jpg]

This has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever. Rich people will never spend enough in goods to balance this system.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
25-03-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: The negative income tax
(25-03-2014 02:54 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(25-03-2014 02:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The problem with that is it seems to me that it hits hardest those with the least already. Everyone needs a bare minimum to survive, in food, fuel, housing, clothing, etc. So if you make pure consumerism the primary tax source, you're further shifting the tax burden even further onto the poorest of Americans who already have the least. Those millionaire and billionaire CEO's aren't spending their money buying millions of pairs of pants for themselves. They have as many pants as everyone else, possibly a little more, but not by orders of magnitude as indicated by their inflated salaries. The vast majority of the taxes will still come form regular folk trying to make ends meet. The richest 1% do not consume enough to justify their hoarding of 90% of the wealth. It just sits there, making even more money for them; it doesn't go back into the economy, it doesn't get circulated, it doesn't generate business, it doesn't get taxed.

There are things that can be done to correct the current system. Fix the lopsided taxing; finances should be taxed more than labor, not less. End government subsidies to billion dollar international corporations, that in turn hide their income revenue oversees so that it cannot be taxed here. Establish a federal minimum living wage that adjusts automatically every year. It is consumers that drive the economy. Trickle down economics is just that, 'trickle down'; and I'm tired of the American people being pissed on for over 3 decades and counting. The american people and the government who is supposed to be representing them are more powerful and have far more leverage than they think, and if they'd only realize that and stand up for themselves we'd all be better off. Nothing is improved by whoring ourselves out to Wall Street and corporations; nothing but short term gains for the wealthiest while the rest of us are left holding the bucket when things collapse.

[Image: 1926685_10152348804747722_59489766_n.jpg]

This has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever. Rich people will never spend enough in goods to balance this system.

William Buffet's yearly expenditure is $150,000 (a rather low percentage of his yearly income). He still lives in his original house he owned before he became ungodly rich and drives mildly average cars.

I haven't read this thread because I suspect it's another stupid unrealistic left wing view, am I wrong?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: The negative income tax
(25-03-2014 10:03 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  William Buffet's yearly expenditure is $150,000 (a rather low percentage of his yearly income). He still lives in his original house he owned before he became ungodly rich and drives mildly average cars.

I haven't read this thread because I suspect it's another stupid unrealistic left right wing view, am I wrong?

Now you're good.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: The negative income tax
Ah thanks Rev.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(25-03-2014 10:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Ah thanks Rev.

Well the OP was Heywood, so there is that... Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-03-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: The negative income tax
(25-03-2014 02:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-03-2014 10:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Ah thanks Rev.

Well the OP was Heywood, so there is that... Dodgy

Another reason I didn't read it.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: