Sign in to follow this  
Che'_Moderator

Tax Reform

Recommended Posts

yeah, walmart exists because of poor people not capitalism... i think they are all intertwined. and I'm not a communist although would that be such a horrible thing? blindly believing in capitalism is just as bad. isn't it my first amendment right to think what i want and disagree with our government? i don't care about not having "power." i have my own happiness.

a utopian society would be horrible! i mean, people on an even keel?! what is this? a kibbutz? i want guns and violence and my kids to get shot while they are begging for money to go to college. thanks for thinking that teachers should be paid more, that makes me feel really good inside, not that it matters. do you attend town meetings? and if so do you participate? what's the difference? i live in a city and i'm one voice that can only represent myself and i wouldn't be so selfish as to try to change policies to benefit myself.

Have not stepped in a Walmart in 10 years. Walmart exists because of poor people not for people. No one makes you work for 6 dollars an hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way I can distill all of my thoughts on this clearly in one post but I'll try to start off with the fundamentals and hope maybe they evolve in a few posts.

First off, I am way up there in the tax categories. Chuck and I are probably close. I don't like to be taxed carte blanche, but at the same time I don't like to see the de facto underclass continually expanded by virtue of our economics. I see it from both sides. If some of you would read some economics books that view it from both sides, you might actually have something valuable to offer but most just repeat their ideas based on two items... the present state of affairs, and their idea of what is fair, or Fox news.

Probably the largest fundamental problem with taxation and a capitalist economy is that the idea of taxation and the idea of finite resources eventually compete. No one here has even broached this. The primary conflict is that for an increasing population, or economy, the government needs to collect an increasing tax base. However, with a finite resource base of labor and natural resources, the only possibility of growth in a market based economy is for efficiencies to exist on a continual basis. Efficiencies is a euphemism for decreased cost in any case. So, you are trying to increase your tax base but at the same time you are trying to decrease costs for a unit of production. The ultimate result of course being that the means of production, labor and resources, are apportioned less capital, and yet the beneficiarys of this production must be taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the efficiency. I personally don't think this paradox is all that hard to realize. That being said...

I think we would all agree that the truth in a capitalist economy is that competition breeds wealth. Competition includes innovation of every kind to include manufacturing, invention, etc. These must exist in order to motivate those of greater resource to create progress, but also to ensure that in a world of many sovereign markets that the distribution of wealth rewards those most who create progress. Eventually it is unavoidable that those who create progress must continually exploit the means of production in order to achieve the result worthy of motivation.

But now we focus on one sovereign entity. Let's say the United States. Absent the event of revolutionary progress, for example the industrial age or the digital age, there is no choice but to have the efficiencies applied continually to a lesser class, whether it is on shore or off shore. This idea is that unless a completely new resource or innovation is being tapped that benefits all as a result of dramatic resource comsumption reduction overall, then the efficiency must be expressed and distributed while maintaining motivation for those who would seek it in competition. There you have it. Now we have increasing wealth disproportionately but also a disproportionate feeling toward taxation. The disparity ultimately is concerned with relative standard of living, but is affected by non obligatory costs incurred by the operation of government. The upper 50% expect a certain standard of living based on a long history of economic evolution that has relied on production efficiency while relying on the lower 50% providing this with a lower standard of living. The ultimate question is how that standard of living is distributed via what I would say are the basics of general wealth... food, housing, healthcare, education, and luxuries. All the while considering the necessary tax base is ever increasing.

The balance then ultimately becomes consumption vs. perceived standard of living due to the fact that we are currently taxed on a system that is arbitrarily set toward standard of living without accounting for overall consumption. Progressive tax is based on arbitrary standard of living. A consumption tax would be based on a standard of living that is either created by the economy, or limited by the tolerance of those who are subjected to it.

The idea of civil fiduciary responsibility is far more complicated than any of the pedestrian ideas floated here. Especially considering the global economy and the governmental responsibilities that are required to secure an economy. Don't buy the Chomski version, don't buy the Fox news version. Think long term and you will realize that natural resource eventually trumps all, and in the meantime tax is just philosophical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I am way up there in the tax categories. Chuck and I are probably close.

There are a lot of us here getting hit for 1/3. Its just how much do we dodge to avoid paying for poorly conceptualized programs. Should I end up paying more I assure you I will end up paying less. I already have money off shores and several companies under my name. IMHO, and I share this boat with a lot of my friends, we will not pay anymore taxes to fund the lazy and un employed. Lazy and un employed are not the same thing. You are laid off it happens. Take your hand out and pull yourself up. But when something like 60% off people collecting have been un employed 1 year or longer thats BS. Go work at Taco Bell. Its better than nothing. I am sick or america and its entitlement issues. The upper class have the same problems but we can affords our own stuff. I am sick of hearing people bitch they cannot have a PS3, bigscreen tv, european vacation, Patek, whatever. Work for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of us here getting hit for 1/3. Its just how much do we dodge to avoid paying for poorly conceptualized programs. Should I end up paying more I assure you I will end up paying less. I already money off shores and several companies under my name. IMHO, and I share this boat with a lot of my friends, we will not pay anymore taxes to fund the lazy and un employed. Lazy and un employed are not the same thing. You are laid off it happens. Take your hand out and pull yourself. But when something like 60% off people collecting have been un employed 1 year or longer thats BS. Go work at Taco Bell. Its better than nothing. I am sick or america and its entitlement issues. The upper class have the same problems but we can affords or own stuff. I am sick of hearing people bitch they anot have a PS3, bigscreen tv, european vacation, Patek, whatever. Work for it!

I have a PS3, bigscreen TV and going on a international vacation! but I am not bitching :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of us here getting hit for 1/3. Its just how much do we dodge to avoid paying for poorly conceptualized programs. Should I end up paying more I assure you I will end up paying less. I already have money off shores and several companies under my name. IMHO, and I share this boat with a lot of my friends, we will not pay anymore taxes to fund the lazy and un employed. Lazy and un employed are not the same thing. You are laid off it happens. Take your hand out and pull yourself up. But when something like 60% off people collecting have been un employed 1 year or longer thats BS. Go work at Taco Bell. Its better than nothing. I am sick or america and its entitlement issues. The upper class have the same problems but we can affords our own stuff. I am sick of hearing people bitch they cannot have a PS3, bigscreen tv, european vacation, Patek, whatever. Work for it!

You are a pure objectivist in the Rand vein. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a pure objectivist in the Rand vein. Nothing wrong with that.

She was very class for a socialist ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of us here getting hit for 1/3. Its just how much do we dodge to avoid paying for poorly conceptualized programs. Should I end up paying more I assure you I will end up paying less. I already have money off shores and several companies under my name. IMHO, and I share this boat with a lot of my friends, we will not pay anymore taxes to fund the lazy and un employed. Lazy and un employed are not the same thing. You are laid off it happens. Take your hand out and pull yourself up. But when something like 60% off people collecting have been un employed 1 year or longer thats BS. Go work at Taco Bell. Its better than nothing. I am sick or america and its entitlement issues. The upper class have the same problems but we can affords our own stuff. I am sick of hearing people bitch they cannot have a PS3, bigscreen tv, european vacation, Patek, whatever. Work for it!

I loved the lady at the grocery store yesterday. Cell phine,nails, hairdo, what looked like a real fur coat. Buys frozen shrimp, pays with food stamps, then goes out side and gets in a cab with her girl friend similarly dressed. Poor?

Teen moms with designer jeans and a cell phone. I'm paying so she can eat? Thats not poor. Thats expertly using the system.

Thats what will happen, folks with means will find a way to not pay more, tax revenue declines. Budget will not balance. Reduce taxes, folks spend or invest, tax revenue increases. Lower spending. Budget balances. Magic. I'm Milton Fucking Friedman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the lady at the grocery store yesterday. Cell phine,nails, hairdo, what looked like a real fur coat. Buys frozen shrimp, pays with food stamps, then goes out side and gets in a cab with her girl friend similarly dressed. Poor?

Teen moms with designer jeans and a cell phone. I'm paying so she can eat? Thats not poor. Thats expertly using the system.

Thats what will happen, folks with means will find a way to not pay more, tax revenue declines. Budget will not balance. Reduce taxes, folks spend or invest, tax revenue increases. Lower spending. Budget balances. Magic. I'm Milton Fucking Friedman.

You say it like I dont know how to not pay taxes. The only time I do is if I want to have employees in country. Five years ago I paid tax and SS on 11 people. Two years 3. Next year.... probably none. Places like eLance and vendors like Willie make it more and more easy for me to screw over the poor little US min wage worker. 10 years ago I didnt like to do it and kept jobs here even though it cost more. Today I laugh whenever I save a few grand and out source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my intention at all. Just a general observation. I work for folks that have a lot of zeros in their bank accounts, and the staff of accountants and lawyers they keep is impressive. Plus these folks also donate a TON of cash to worthy causes. I wonder how that giving gets affected when the tax burden increases. Then again, a couple of these guys worked on Wall Street, one guy was a huge name in hedge fund management. Wonder how their doing now?

Ah Greenwich, CT. Home to the ridiculously rich, and many of my clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Greenwich, CT. Home to the ridiculously rich, and many of my clients.

Till they replace you with an Indian :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, with a finite resource base of labor and natural resources, the only possibility of growth in a market based economy is for efficiencies to exist on a continual basis.

-How can a tax base grow and then we end up with a finite labor resource?

So, you are trying to increase your tax base but at the same time you are trying to decrease costs for a unit of production.

-Won’t sales growth from the increased market and tax base allow for a larger profit margin? Taking into account that the cost of operations will generally increase, but always has and should be accounted for in the business model. The incentive for efficient operations is cheaper product and market domination, while maintaining a healthy profit margin.

The ultimate result of course being that the means of production, labor and resources, are apportioned less capital, and yet the beneficiaries of this production must be taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the efficiency.

-If you’re not getting enough for your product and your being taxed higher, than your in a bad business. It’s doesn’t take an economic genius to realize that. The market will adjust. Since when has any business “took it in the profit?” Those tax cost are a line on your receipt.

Eventually it is unavoidable that those who create progress must continually exploit the means of production, (allow me to finish this sentence).

-To achieve a result of continual profit to insure their own personal success, regardless of future progress. Point in case, Fanny, Freddie, Enron, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Lealman Brothers ect….

The balance then ultimately becomes consumption vs. perceived standard of living due to the fact that we are currently taxed on a system that is arbitrarily set toward standard of living without accounting for overall consumption. Progressive tax is based on arbitrary standard of living. A consumption tax would be based on a standard of living that is either created by the economy, or limited by the tolerance of those who are subjected to it.

-The issue of progressive tax can be argued to death. A consumption tax would be a better standard. Only paying tax on goods and services you receive. I fully agree. However, the beneficiaries of these taxes are not only government sectors but contractors for them and so on and so on. It should be known that the companies that are “America”, will not allow a consumption based tax.

The idea of civil fiduciary responsibility is far more complicated than any of the pedestrian ideas floated here. Especially considering the global economy and the governmental responsibilities that are required to secure an economy.

-Making point to my comment regarding benefit for taxation. The government securing the economy has larger financial benefits for some than others. While you feel these are all pedestrian ideals, I fail to see where you have brought to light an abundance of ideals that haven’t been discussed, respectively.

While I site Chomski quite a bit, I don’t feel his ideals alone are the answer. I will say that he has a very insightful view on current issues and a dreamers vision for the future. Regardless the ideals of supply in demand, resources vs. production and taxation are all a balance. Like I have mentioned before, we need all the pieces to make the puzzle, not just one. Incentive based societies breed the best innovation, we can all agree on that. Point in case being America. However, to insure the progress you mention, we must not create a huge gap between socioeconomic groups. Nor shall we provide a canvas of unregulated capitalism and hope it turns out for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of us here getting hit for 1/3. Its just how much do we dodge to avoid paying for poorly conceptualized programs. Should I end up paying more I assure you I will end up paying less. I already have money off shores and several companies under my name. IMHO, and I share this boat with a lot of my friends, we will not pay anymore taxes to fund the lazy and un employed. Lazy and un employed are not the same thing. You are laid off it happens. Take your hand out and pull yourself up. But when something like 60% off people collecting have been un employed 1 year or longer thats BS. Go work at Taco Bell. Its better than nothing. I am sick or america and its entitlement issues. The upper class have the same problems but we can affords our own stuff. I am sick of hearing people bitch they cannot have a PS3, bigscreen tv, european vacation, Patek, whatever. Work for it!

I can not think of anything better than...

werd.jpg

I have not read a better post on this forum to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boost junky you are distorting the context of much of what I say. Using line by lines to make it easy for you to write is lame, especially when you use questions as rebuttal. I've made my point sufficiently, feel free to make yours using your own words.

I think you are agreeing with me on a few items and you are not understanding my point on some others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Till they replace you with an Indian :lol:

Guatemalans are in vogue on the Gold Coast! Take a ride to the Rye, NY MetroNorth train station and get as many as you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<!--quoteo(post=1419550:date=Oct 28 2008, 11:58 AM:name=7 VII 7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (7 VII 7 @ Oct 28 2008, 11:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1419550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obama 08!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

LOL. Hippies will love 09. 10 not so much

bump

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this