Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

[Lagslayer]

Leafsnail: Uh, I think the bigger point of contention is where the constitution bans all forms of "favoritism".



Huh? Could you rephrase your point?

[lemon10]

Nowhere near as much as you think. Consider this]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom]this information from the UK. Consider the following table:

Taxpayer type	UK average	top 10% to 1%	top 1% to 0.1%	0.1% and above
Mean income	£24,769	£49,960	£155,832	£780,043
Ratio of income to average income	1	2.02	6.29	31.49
Ratio of income tax contributions to average income tax contributions	1	3.07	9.56	42

As you can see, the richest already pay even more than their fair share.

No, they don't (at least according to that graph).
100% (average), 151% (top 10-1%), 151%(top 1-.1%), 1.33 (.1% and above)
Hell, the top 10% pay more tax % then the top .1%.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, the top .1% can often afford to hire accountants to dodge taxes.

Huh? Could you rephrase your point?

You're saying that subsidies count as favouritism.  OK, let's accept this.

Is favouritism unconsitutional?

[Phmcw]

Beside all those statistics are base on the imposable income. If you think it's the bulk of the income, then you've never been rich.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

New law:  If you are in America or an American, then you must pay _____ % flat tax on all income made, no matter where the income was earned.  Period.  There are no write offs, no deductions, nothing.  By law.  Every single dollar earned is reported the the US on the spot and tax deducted from it immediately.  Period.  Faulire to do so could result in:  1.  Loss of citizenship, 2.  Fines and Forfitures of any or all property  3.  open public ridicule and scorn as a cheat/thief  4. jail time; all based on severity and extent.

I think that law would work fine.

Also, republicans are FOR a tax overhaul.  read up some more.  Check out Paul Ryan (not Ryan Paul).

[Leafsnail]

New law:  If you are in America or an American, then you must pay _____ % flat tax on all income made, no matter where the income was earned.  Period.  There are no write offs, no deductions, nothing.  By law.  Every single dollar earned is reported the the US on the spot and tax deducted from it immediately.  Period.  Faulire to do so could result in:  1.  Loss of citizenship, 2.  Fines and Forfitures of any or all property  3.  open public ridicule and scorn as a cheat/thief  4. jail time; all based on severity and extent.

So, problems I see:
- Less wealthy citizens working abroad would still get this tax rate imposed on them.  Americans are effectively chained to their country forever.
- Penalties include loss of citizenship... so, uh, they then don't have to pay taxes?
- It might be kindof hard extraditing these people
- Mob justice is great, isn't it
- Are you gonna tax, say, tourists on foreign investments while they're staying in America?
- What if the money, say, is made in America but is then paid to someone who is neither American nor in America?  And then that money is transferred as a "good will payment" (hey, your new tax code has no provisions for those) back into the country?

I'm not a genius accoutant, but I can see plenty of ways to walk all over this law (as well as plenty of people who would be unfairly penalized).  I'd be very surprised if any American earning over about $200k would end up paying any tax at all under this scheme.

[Sowelu]

Gorjo, what's "income"?

If you invest, and make returns on it, is that income?  If you get a paycheck, then put it in the bank, and it gets interest, is that income?  If you put money into a retirement fund, then take it back out, is that income?  In all those cases, you could be taxed twice on the same money.

Hell, there's a lot of cases like the stock market where you might be putting money in and then taking it back out many, many times.  Do you get taxed every time you take the money back out?  That's fucked up, man.  And investing isn't something that only rich people do.

If you try to define it the other way--where profits are only when your stocks' value goes up--then what happens if they go up and down a whole lot?  Yeah, now you have to only tax them based on the total amount it's increased between when you put it in and when you took it out.  What if you put more money into a fund gradually over time, while the fund's current value changed?  And what happens if your portfolio's value is growing at the same speed as inflation:  Is that income, or not?  If it's growing slower, do you get a refund?

On the other hand, if you aren't careful about what you define as income, people who have a ton of money invested end up increasing their holdings without paying a dime on it.

THIS.  IS.  NOT.  AN.  EASY.  PROBLEM.

[ed boy]

Faulire to do so could result in:  1.  Loss of citizenship, 2.  Fines and Forfitures of any or all property  3.  open public ridicule and scorn as a cheat/thief  4. jail time; all based on severity and extent.

That's unconstitutional. There is a reason why cruel and unusual punishment is not approved of.

[lemon10]

late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his "Roadmap."[21] It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[22][23] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[23] and end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid.[22][23] The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would decrease over time.[23]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman took issue with the contention that Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit, alleging that it only considered proposed spending cuts and failed to take into account the tax changes. According to Krugman, Ryan's plan "would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population" but would produce a $4 trillion revenue loss over ten years because of the tax cuts for the rich.

Also, republicans are FOR a tax overhaul.  read up some more.  Check out Paul Ryan (not Ryan Paul).

Yeah, if by tax overhaul you mean "make the rich richer", and "make the poor poorer" then yes, pretty much every rebublican  is for a tax overhaul.

[Lagslayer]

Yeah, the top .1% can often afford to hire accountants to dodge taxes.

Huh? Could you rephrase your point?

You're saying that subsidies count as favouritism.  OK, let's accept this.

Is favouritism unconsitutional?

Ah, much better. They are monetary favoritism when used to prop up failing companies or industries (basically a bailout), or on a whim. It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with private businesses in this manner. If they can show that it is immediately critical to something like national defense, then there may be some provision for that.



Sowelu: THIS.  IS.  NOT.  AN.  EASY.  PROBLEM.


This is true.

[lemon10]

Yeah, the top .1% can often afford to hire accountants to dodge taxes.

Huh? Could you rephrase your point?

You're saying that subsidies count as favouritism.  OK, let's accept this.

Is favouritism unconsitutional?

Ah, much better. They are monetary favoritism when used to prop up failing companies or industries (basically a bailout). It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with private businesses in this manner. If they can show that it is immediately critical to something like national defense, then there may be some provision for that. Of course, for something like this, maybe it should just be government owned anyways.

Show me where it says that it's:

It is unconstitutional for the government to interfere with private businesses in this manner

You can't, because it never says that anywhere. If you are going to keep bringing up the constitution, at least be correct in what you say.

[Phmcw]

New law:  If you are in America or an American, then you must pay _____ % flat tax on all income made, no matter where the income was earned.  Period.  There are no write offs, no deductions, nothing.  By law.  Every single dollar earned is reported the the US on the spot and tax deducted from it immediately.  Period.  Faulire to do so could result in:  1.  Loss of citizenship, 2.  Fines and Forfitures of any or all property  3.  open public ridicule and scorn as a cheat/thief  4. jail time; all based on severity and extent.

I think that law would work fine.

Also, republicans are FOR a tax overhaul.  read up some more.  Check out Paul Ryan (not Ryan Paul).

Won't work, for so many reason I can't explain them all at once. The easiest is that once you're big, you use a society (edit a society as coca cola, I mean you invest in a society and keep your money in the society. I'm  not sure  was clear.) and only get money out in case of need, which mean not a lot and not often. Only what you get out count as an "income". But you can get benefits such as car, houses, travels...
There is a lot of way to evade taxes, even though law are usually quite well though.

[Lagslayer]

lemon10: You can't, because it never says that anywhere. If you are going to keep bringing up the constitution, at least be correct in what you say.


They claim to have this power from "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", however this is hotly contested. So I suppose the politically correct thing to say would be that I believe this is is unconstitutional, or at the very least a gross abuse of power and the rules, which would be a blatant loophole.


edit: spelling

[Leafsnail]

So... you're saying that it isn't against the constitution but you think it's bad and therefore it's a loophole being exploited?