The Flat Tax

[John Bridge]

This results from a thread on another subject: http://johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2165

I feel very strongly about a flat income tax which would be levied on everyone who draws breath. I think it should be set at 15 percent of everyone's income, no matter the source. We could exempt the first $20,000. This would accommodate the very "poor." Mind you, though, the exemption is universal, and beyond it there would be no deductions, period.

I have a lot of good arguments supporting this system, but I'll wait for others to express their opinions.

[Sponsored Links]

[Cami A]

Hey! A good debate...

I think that system has considerable merit BUT would encourage huge amounts of "under the table" jobs. I propose a flat tax on all items purchased new--- a national sales tax. I would support exemptions for food purchases and health insurance, and probably a gradually phased out exemption on housing.

[AGC]

I propose the federal goverment worry only about national defense and printing money. Let the local government collect, if they can....

[Bri]

Hi Cami
Well, we have the GST here(goods and services tax)..and it sucks. soon we'll be paying tax on our taxes(hell, maybe we already are!):(

[Cami A]

GST, VAT...I admit I'm not proposing anything new. This would never happen in America, anyhow. At least not as the sole income tax- always a possibility that it could occur as an additional tax...and that would suck! :D

[AGC]

I'm more of a sink or swim type. No taxes, everyone carries a six gun, good fences/good nieghbors, free and open enterprise. Did I mention I'm moving to Montana next week?

[Rob Z]

"...and that would suck! " So, it took the topic of taxes to get Ms. Cami to use a bit of profanity (sorta). :)



AGC...you and I would get along REALLY well! However, I prefer the semi-auto, with the pre-ban 15 round magazine, over a six gun.

[AGC]

I'll tell ya Rob, I recently purchased a gun safe to store my weapons in. My wife was so proud that I was being a responsible dad. The real advantage of a gun safe is that you can secretly take a cash job, buy your weapon of choice, and quietly stick it in your safe, and the wife is none the wiser. I will confess, my admiration for the six gun has been reasonable tempered by the recent acquisition of a Glock.

[Rob Z]

AGC :D

Are we somehow related?

[Terry O'Neill]

Example: Self-Employed, Income $75,000

Income $75,000
Exemption $20,000

Taxable Income $55,000
Federal (15%) $ 8,250
State (6%?) $ 3,300
FICA (15.3%) $11,475 (no exemption, they would never
allow that)

Net Profit $51,975

Minus sales tax throughout (VA is 4.50%)

John,
This scenario would put the marginal tax rate at 11%,
and the overall at 29.4% (FICA drops to 12.4% because we deduct one half from gross). This would improve if one could break through the Social Security ceiling. I'm not sure, but I've got a feeling it's a close call on money out of pocket.
However, I could never see this happening because it would remove the leverage enjoyed presently by our fine congressman and women. Tax laws are their prime ammunition. The ONLY reason that each new batch that comes into power tinker with the tax laws can be wrapped up into the phrase "constituent votes and special interests". I think the only way to have a fair and just system is to establish term limits. Let them live under the laws they enact.
Also I wouldn't mind the FICA so much if only it were really mine and I could invest it under the same guidelines as any other retirement program.

(Terry, I corrected the VA sales tax % so folks wouldn't think we had a low sales tax-Rob)

[Edited by Rob Zschoche on 05-12-2002 at 12:39 PM]

[Cami A]

...the wife is none the wiser....

Don't be so sure 'bout that. :D


Rob, when I do swear, Jack comes a-runnin'....He knows something is really wrong! (Or I'm doing the taxes for the restaurant...)

Let's reform Small Business Taxes while we're rewriting the tax code...

[John Bridge]

Cami,

Under-the-table transactions are encouraged by the current rip-off we call the tax code. Changing the brackets to something reasonable might help discourage that, so I don't agree with you on that point.

I don't like a sales tax because it WOULD encourage more under counter transactions, and a sales tax does not exempt the very poor, so there would be stiff opposition to it. I count myself as a fiscal conservative, but I am not adverse to giving the less fortunate a very basic break.

A national sales tax also places an undo burden on the states, which would have to collect it.

Terry,

It is precesely for the reasons you stated that a flat tax appeals to me. The rate should be set in the Constitution so that succeeding Congresses can't mess with it. Term limits should be the topic of another debate.

The flat tax should be set at 15%, and the $20,000 deduction should be universal. There should be no other deductions. None.

The $20,000 should be reviewed annually and adjusted for inflation.

Income earners should file individually. No regard should be given to marital status or number of children or other dependents.

There should be a provision (exception) for times of extreme national emergency, but those instances would have to be clearly defined and limited. This would all have to be worked out very carefully so that it couldn't be used as a dodge by dearly elected officials.

My thought on controlling state and local taxes is to include a provision in the Constitution limiting the "combined" tax. Let states, counties and cities fight it out, but no one would ever pay more than the miximum allowable combined rate.

For those of you who fear amending the Constitution, just think about it this way. Would you want Congress to have a set tax, but not limit the amount that can be levied? That's exactly what we have now. And for those who are sold on a sales tax, would you want to leave the income tax in place?

Oh yeah, my plan requires an amendment. Without it you're just playing the same old game.

I figure I'm paying pretty close to 50% in total taxes right now. I'm getting a little sick of it. I'm not getting it back in services.

[Terry O'Neill]

John,
I just checked my Turbo Tax return for 2001 and I came up with approximately a 22% tax burden, including FICA (but not state). This, in spite of being in the 28% (or is it 27% now) bracket.
I don't disagree that the flat tax seems a whole lot fairer on the surface, but I'm not so sure it's a step in the right direction. I remember when Armey was proposing 17% and it seemed like way too much when I ran some numbers.
I still think the fly in this ointment is the FICA. Can you imagine the wealth you could accumulate with that contribution?
I do agree on one point, if I'm reading between the lines correctly. I've always felt that there should not be graduated brackets. I think it's wrong to punish achievement by taking more from the person who has earned more. As for taxing a person according to his/her ability to pay, this is exactly what happens when the bracket stays the same, ie....
10% Tax on $10,000=$1000 Tax Burden
10% Tax on $100,000=$10,000 Tax Burden
Now that I did this exercise maybe we are on the same page.
I'm just not sure about removing all deductions, personal maybe, business definitely not.

Rob,
Thanks:confused:

[Edited by Terry O'Neill on 05-12-2002 at 05:33 PM]

[Cami A]

Under-the-table transactions are encouraged by the current rip-off we call the tax code.

I believe that under-the table transactions would be encouraged under a straight percentage plan, also.

If purchases were taxed, it matters not if that money was gotten through the sale of drugs, or for an honest day's work.

And, yes, if we're going to mess with the tax code, let's get rid of the current income tax altogether. If anything was ever in need of a clean slate, our tax system is it.

[flatfloor]

It does NOT need to be 15%. Ten would do it once we eliminate ALL loop holes tax is 10% period. I'll buy exempting the first $20K. Stanley Tools $30,000,000 alone would compensate quite adequately for any under the table transactions. I want to find out how many corps. paid no taxes at all.

[Terry O'Neill]

I feel a grassroot groundswell coming on :eek:

[jlbos83]

A tsunami on land????

[John Bridge]

Our sales tax now is between 7% and 9% depending on which city or county you live in. It averages about 8 across Texas. If the sales tax were over 20%, as it would have to be, don't you think that a lot more sales transactions would go unreported? Dope dealers ain't gonna pay tax at ANY rate. ;)

Jim,

I think the corporate tax should be done away with altogether. Why should companies (not individuals) have to pay tax on earnings, when the individuals who profit by those earnings untimately pay tax on them? I said before that companies really don't pay taxes anyway; people pay them. Companies have to compete with one another, but they pass corporate taxes on to consumers.

Terry,

There can be no deductions. If there were any at all, someone would have to decide them. Who would that someone be? And who's favorite deductions would be approved?

That's what we have now. Why do you need deductions if you know ahead of time what your tax bill will be?

I'm not incorporated, so I don't have any business deductions. I have business expenses which are deducted from my business income before I calculate my tax bill.

Why would anyone need deductions if the system were flat and fair to everyone?

[flatfloor]

John, your not incorporated? Very unwise from a liability point. Let's not get into that here though.


You will never do away with corporate taxes, political suicide. Whoever proposed it would immediately be attacked by his opponent.


Figure tax according to Forbes http://www.usatoday.com/elect/ep/epr/eprf022.htm

[Edited by flatfloor on 05-12-2002 at 07:24 PM]

[Terry O'Neill]

John,
When I said business deductions I was referring to legitimate business expenses, so I think we're together on that one. However, if you take away the depreciable life cycle of equipment, machinery, etc. I think you deter motivation for capital investment (the greatest break we have ever had as small businessmen/women is IRC 179).
It's my understanding that C Corps. are subject to a 35% corporate tax. I'm not sure if that's straight across the board. I think the sticky part comes in with the declaration of what is retained earnings vs. dividends (I think a 20% capital gain applies?). I'm not sure about your point that Corporations pay no taxes. I think the evidence is in the flight to Bermuda and other havens.

Doctor: You have 6 months to live.

Lady: What should I do?

Doctor: Marry an accountant and move to the Yukon.

Lady: Will I live longer?

Doctor: No, it will just seem that way.

p.s. I'm totally with you on the simplification and lowering of tax burdens. :D

[Cami A]

John, my point is that everyone would pay the tax, except on the necessities. The usual exemptions are food for preparation at home, medical services, prescriptions, rent, etc.- very similar to what is exempt from state taxes. Clothing, tennis shoes, luxury cars- all taxed, whether you made the money under the table or not.

Cananda's GST is 7.5%, Australia's GST is 10%, and England's euphemistic "Value Added Tax" is a whopping 17.5%, in addition to income taxes.

[flatfloor]

Those are all just gimmicks to manipulate the economy

Do you need someone when to tell you when it's time to replace a piece of equipment? If you have enough money in your pocket (because the government didn't take it away so it could maybe give it back) you will buy that equipment when and if you need it.

Your second paragraph just demonstrates why you must have a flat rate. NO exceptions. One exception or modification becomes 2 then 3. Pretty soon you have a...Ta Da! Tax Code again!



[Edited by flatfloor on 05-12-2002 at 09:24 PM]

[Bri]

Cami..you forgot the Provincial tax on top of the GST..so now were up to 17%....it works out that every Canadian works 6 months for the feds,and the rest of the year for themselves...when you add the 25-30% income tax to what you have left.

[Cami A]

But you have health care... :D...and that's another can of worms...

I figure your Provincial Taxes are the equivilant of our state sales tax- what's the average provincial tax in Canada? Seems like the highest state tax is 7(?) percent, but that doesn't include city taxes, or property taxes, or...

[flatfloor]

April 27th is tax emancipation day in the US.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=576

[LDavis]

Well, thanks alot! My blood usually only boils over this issue once per quarter when I send the IR/SS "THE CHECK". Now I'm pissed off all over again and it isn't even June 15th yet. The current tax code is obscene and ridiculous. Will it change...No. (Unless its to get hungrier, bigger and more complicated). Far too many "entities" thrive on the system as it is. Unless you want to open the forum up to a discussion on the next American Civil War, all this topic does is raise my blood pressure.

I better go get a beer before I tell you what I really think!

[flatfloor]

Beer Tax! :D

[Terry O'Neill]

John and flatfloor,
Would your flat tax eliminate sales tax, and is it in addition to SS?

John
Federal 15%
FICA 15.3%

Total 30.3%

Jim
Federal 10%
FICA 15.3%

Total 25.3%

Maybe we can get it through Congress as Jonn Bridges flatfloor tax:D

[AGC]

Okay I am sold on the flat tax with one minor modification. 0% flat rate. I like it! The best way to lower our taxes is to cut liberal spending. If that doesn't work then just stop paying. If that doesn't work and the tax man cometh, lock and load.

[John Bridge]

Terry,

To address FICA will take another thread (and I'm ready for that, too), but I'm talking about the "income tax." What I'm talking about will not take into consideration state and local taxes, EXCEPT that my proposal includes the universal tax cap. Let's say we amend the Constitution to the effect that nobody can be required to pay more than 25% of his income in "combined" (meaning every entity) tax. Now the feds get 15%. That leaves 10% for state and local.

That's it. No other tax code at the federal level. The 15% federal rate is fixed in the Constitution, so the feds can't encroach on the states and cities.

The states are the next authority down. They could take the whole 10% if they wanted to, but we know they won't. They'll give the counties and cities a penny or two as they do now.

NO ONE ELSE would be authorized to levy taxes in excess of the 25%, period. I don't care about schools (which ought to be private, anyway), and I don't care about hospital districts (which ought to be charities). Nobody get any more of your money.

Jim, you say it can't be done, but it can. All it takes is an amendment to the Constitution.

And don't tell me that all government combined can't operate on 25% of all income in this country (less the $20,000 universal deduction). If you try to tell me that, I'll remind you that the origianl income tax was only 1%, and it was levied on only the top five percent of income earners in the country. ;)

I ain't pickin' on you, Cami.

"Cananda's GST is 7.5%, Australia's GST is 10%, and England's euphemistic "Value Added Tax" is a whopping 17.5%, in addition to income taxes."

No offense meant to all our friends in Oz, Canada, and the U.K., but all of them have much worse fiscal problems than we ever dreamed about. Just look at what's happend to the rate of currency exchange.

[flatfloor]

Why the hell do you have to ask intelligent questions? ;)

I think we leave the sales tax to the individual states and local governments.

Yes add on SS tax on top of the 10%.

No individual invests his own money, pure madness, Wall St is licking it's chops over that one. Enron, Dot-coms, brokers churning individual accounts for commissions, penny stocks, Merril Lynch with buy reccos on Doggies. Man we will have destitute widows, orphans etc. coming out of our ears.

[JC]

Does'nt Hong Kong do this exact thing! They have a great economy!

I beleive they have a 15% flat rate tax....not sure about other taxes and exceptions

I am all for it.......at 15% their should still be plenty of money to cover everything...think about it..how many corperations actually pay 15% now?

15% and no sales taxes or any other taxes..let the state and the government divy up there share out of the 15 percent.


feasible I say yes. very fair.

[JC]

Eh..maybe I am wrong again..just read this


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hong+kong+taxes&hl=en&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&selm=39BBCA10.24A2%40pacbell.net&rnum=26



Heres something on Singapore

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=singapore+flat+tax&hl=en&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&selm=4frche%241cf%40gazette.medtronic.com&rnum=1

[Cami A]

It's ok, John. :D

I'm just playing devil's advocate, mostly. I do believe that both methods of taxation would work, and I would fare considerably better under your proposed system than mine, restaurant wages being what they are. A little research (http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/budgettax/bg1134.html) shows that perhaps we're not so far apart.

I was attempting to point out that it has been implemented in (50+) other countries, unlike the less popular flat tax. You have to figure somewhere, some governmental bean counter of the highest order is doing the math for a GST/VAT right here in the U.S. of A.

[flatfloor]

You would have a constitutional issue on your hands if you tryed to take the right to tax away from states. Why Texas might secede, certainly Taxachussets would.

[John Bridge]

Re: The States' right to tax.

Actually, it was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution that most taxation would occur at the state level and below. On the federal level, they provided for a limited national goverment, a full-time navy and a part-time army. Oh yeah, and the postal department.

[AGC]

Yes!!! John you are absolutely correct. One of the beautiful things about taxing only at the local level is you can pick up and leave if you don't like the tax burden. This in turn forces local government to be competitive with their taxes, which in turn forces very conservative spending. Additionally, taxation at the local level requires local politcians to look the people their taxing in the eye. If everyone in nation had to write a check to the IRS as opposed to having it "taken out" of their check, there would be a revolution within weeks.

[John Bridge]

Correct. But that gets us back to "states' rights," and even though I'm an idealist, I've become enough of a pragmatist in my middle years to know that it ain't gonna ever be that way. ;)

But there is still the option of amending the Constitution. Several years ago I circulated a little feeler amongst constitutionalists here in the Houston area. The gist was calling for the Second Constitutional Convention.

Well, you should have heard and seen the replies I got from people I had hitherto considered "strict constructionists." They were, almost to the man (and woman), against the idea. They were and are afraid that a constituional convention would get into the "wrong hands," meaning people with whom THEY don't agree.

My thinking is no matter what came out of the convention, at least it would then be CONSTITUTIONAL. Nothing of how we govern ourselves these days is.

If anyone here is at a loss as to what I'm talking about, get hold of a copy of the Constitution of the United States (library) and read Article One, Section 8. (Read the whole thing -- it's not long).

Section 8 defines what the federal government can do.

Then read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the last article of the Bill of Rights. That article says that anything not covered by the Constitution is reserved to the states "or to the people."

Then sit there and ponder, as I have for a lot of years, how we got so far away from those simple precepts.

The hammer is taxation, as we all know. Get control of it, and you control your destiny. Control taxation and enjoy true self-government.

It could happen. :)

[AGC]

John, what we desparately need to do is define "interstate commerce". The fed has gotten away with so much under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. A few years ago the supreme court struck down the Guns within School Areas law because it was unconstitutional. The reason? The federal government did not have the authority because they lacked nexus. The fed had no jurisdiction. At this time I thought the court was finally going to attack interstate commerce, alas here we are.

[Terry O'Neill]

John,
Do I have this correct? It would take two thirds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution or two thirds of the legislatures of all existing 50 states could call for a Constitutional Convention. The proposed amendment would then be taken up for a vote by all 50 state legislative bodies. To become an amendment to the Constitution would require a ratification of three quarters of the states.
Where do we go from here, assuming we reach concensus?

[Terry O'Neill]

Jim,
Please let me direct at least a portion of my SS. Let the pedantics who allocate 529 plans do the same for SS. You would have the states and institutions competing for your bucks in the same manner.:)
I think we ought to Lynch Merril:mad:

[John Bridge]

AGC,

The case in point was United States v. Lopez, and the finding was that although the U.S. can regulate interstate commerce, it must have a compelling "commerce" reason to delve into other matters. The justices found that that was not the case in that particular instance. As it turns out, though, U.S. v. Lopez has not become a "landmark" case insofar as that area of jurisprudence is concerned.

Terry,

You are one hundred percent correct. It should be noted, though, that all states have different rules when it comes to constitutional issues. In some state constitutions a popular vote is called for. In other states it can be a straight up or down vote of the legislature.

I've noticed that in Texas (which should not be used as an example because of our wild and wooly ways :D ) that the legislators pretty much go along with the popular consensus, or they find themselves back in private practice forthwith. I have a feeling that might be the case in the other states. If the people get riled (which doesn't happen all that often), EVERYBODY in government takes notice.

I'll just reiterate that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states call for a constitutional convention, Congress cannot refuse. What happens then is up for grabs, as it was during the original convention. That scares a lot of people, but not me. I say again that whatever were to come out of it would indeed be "constitutional." ;)

[flatfloor]

What's the point of this convention, to repeal/revise the 16th Amendment? Clarify the gun laws?

Nope, sorry Terry, what makes you think your 529 is safe? want to lend your money to Orange Cty. Ca. who almost declared bankruptcy because they were misled by stock brokers? Or to the State of Ca. those wonderful far sighted people whp wrote laws so carefully they set themselves up to be raped by Enron?

PS, must admit I don't know much about 529s. College funds?

[Edited by flatfloor on 05-16-2002 at 12:06 AM]

[chip]

How in the heck do you guys know so much about all this stuff?

Aren't you supposed to be out setting tile and or pouring SLC all day?

Man, it sounds like all you do is watch and understand C-Span all day.

Don't mind me, I gotta work for a livin'.

Chippy

[JC]

Chip I told Jim Kelley he was a flaming yahoo like you said..He said some good things about you...maybe he was thinking of someone else...i dunno j/k

[flatfloor]

Chip, you stayin at cheap motels with no cable in the bar? :D

[chip]

I gotta have some money for the "Brewskies"!!

Who the heck can here C-Span in the Bar?

Normally I have all these young woman all over me and I can't hear a thing. It's like a curse or something;)

What's a boy to do?

Chippy

[Terry O'Neill]

flatfloor,
529 plans are indeed devised to finance college studies, so named for IRC 529. They are designed to reduce risk as your child gets nearer to needing the money, switching gradually from a majority of stocks to bonds to cash reserves. They are offered within several mutual funds within a particular mutual fund family as chosen by that state. The person contributing to the plan has no or little choice as to the allocation of assets, thus theoretically saving him/her from him/herself. Choosing what state/fund family you want to participate in and how much you contribute are the most dramatic choices to make.
I feel that under these rigid controls, and if the contribution were mandatory, that is 15.3%, the wealth that would be created for the individual and to the general good of the community would be incredible.
Of course we need to take care of our senior citizens who are dependent upon SS now. How about a 1% incremental morph toward this plan per year.
By the way, I'm not advocating individual stocks, rather mutual funds run by professional money managers, most of whom I assume are well aware of the fudge factor.

[Edited by Terry O'Neill on 05-16-2002 at 07:10 PM]

[John Bridge]

I know this is becoming a complicated thread, but I have to state my views on SS. I would simply abolish it and let the states pick up the slack. I'm saying this at age 61.

As you have alluded, it could be phased out. I'm not advocating cutting people off.

In my view, though, Social Security is about the most unconstitutional program we have going. Of course, all the New Deal programs are, also. Well hell, ditto the Great Society stuff.

Flatfloor's probably about ready to get Vinny after me. :D

[flatfloor]

John if we didn't have SS you would end up supporting someone someway. I am deinitely not a believer in the government knowing what's best, but frankly don't know what else to do.

[b]

http://www.salestax.org

[flatfloor]

Interesting, especially the scams.

From time to time we run some around here, we certainly qualify in the absurd department, completely ridiculous fits and of course looney is a definite yes. Convicted felons? None that we know of, although we do have a member who was kicked OUT of a Federal Penitentiary.:D

[John Bridge]

Thanks for posting, b. Please don't let flatfloor mislead you. All our scams and con games are legal. The money goes directly into numbered accounts in the Bahamas and the Caymans, and we keep books (two sets). Right, Jim? :D

I personally do not like the idea of a national sales tax. It would place a burden on the states, for one thing. And for another thing, I believe the Constitution would have to be amended. There is no provision there now for a national sales tax, unless you want to call it an exise, which would really be pushing it, in my not-so-humble opinion. ;)

Now, if we could just eliminate the income tax and let the states tax their own residents, that would be great. I'd definitely go along with an enhanced sales tax in that case. Let the federal government go back to financing itself in those ways which ARE spelled out in the Constitution.

I know, I know. But I can dream, can't I? :D

[Cami A]

John, the burden would actually be placed on the business owner. If they could keep it as simple as paying my state quarterly sales tax (total $ of taxable goods and services x 6%), it's really the least complicated tax-related form I get. Payroll taxes, with the myriad of forms I need to have updated each spring, are a bigger headache.

[Terry O'Neill]

Does anyone feel the federal government actually deters the small business owner from the hiring of new applicants?
Through the complexity of the payroll process (I use Paychex and it still seems tedious) I wonder if the T-Men lose a lot of revenue because owners don't grow their businesses to the potential that they could otherwise.
Do you consciously (sp?) pull in the reins because you just don't want to deal with all the regulations that come with having employees?

[Bud Cline]

"Yup"!!!

[John Bridge]

Cami,

My payroll form would be a study in simplicity. For example, Jose made x number of dollars. Here's your 15%.

[Bud Cline]

When you guys are finished talking about the tax thing and it's relationship to the employment of people, then discuss the way the Workers Compensation requirement is handled.

You think employment taxes can be a rip-off?

[John Bridge]

In Texas you no longer have to carry workman's comp. I have Albert on my major medical. That's it.

[Cami A]

Then we can cover Liquor Liability along with Workman's Comp...and the many small licenses (food service, entertainment, hotel rooms, blah, blah, blah, can't think of 'em all, blah, blah, just send your money in and we'll give ya anything that's left...not to mention the cost of small group health insurance....)

Nah...let's just stick to taxes. Simplify, simplify, simplify...

[Bud Cline]

There's nothing any of us can do about taxes. But discussions about other aspects of business related needs and obligations could be beneficial to some of us in business.

[flatfloor]

I'm not sure your right about taxes. But I do agree there are other aspects of business we could discuss. I would think that each aspect deserves a separate thread, you mentioned Workman's Comp. great subject but if we mix it in with Flat tax all is lost.

Along those lines I'm going to start a new thread.

[Terry O'Neill]

How do you determine a quote for your customer? Should/Do all these components we've put on the table simply become a part of overhead/expenses used to come up with a price.
John said several times that Corporations pay no taxes. In reality should we be paying or collecting taxes,work. comp.,insurance,etc?

[John Bridge]

There are, of course, "corporate taxes," but we all know that those taxes are passed along with other expenses to the end user of the product or service. That's why I said that only "people" pay taxes.

What started this is the trend where coporations are moving to the Bahamas to reduce their tax load. It's not that these companies don't want to pay taxes (passed along to "people"); it's that they have an absolute need to compete with companies already located in countries with more favorable tax climates for corporations. I was trying to point out that there is nothing unpatriotic about these companies moving their headquarters off-shore.

[Terry O'Neill]

John,
I agree 100% with your post. The same congessman that was so angered by the "defection" of Stanley and got this whole ball rolling was interviewed again on CNBC this morning.
He was asked how many companies had already relocated to favorable climates. His answer was more than a score. He was told that more than 8,000 had done so (the other night the figure given was more than 12,000) so he was indeed correct:rolleyes: Asked repeatedly whether the current tax code is unfair/full of loopholes/should be scrapped/overhauled he repeatedly bobbed and weaved. Perhaps the move to greener pastures hits the proverbial campaign contribution right in the you know where, and that may be the crux of the "outrage". Who is in bed with whom?

[flatfloor]

Actually Terry it's not whose in bed with whom it's who's not in bed. It's a bloody orgy.

[Cami A]

Having seen a few of those elder statesman, that's really not a pretty mental image... :o

[flatfloor]

Just picture them fully clothed with briefcases. :D BTW there are a few elder statesladies too!

[John Bridge]

Still not a pretty picture, but prettier than the one Cami is envisioning. :D

[flatfloor]

I think I'm going to be ill, I just thought of Hillary.

http://www.ucdcrew.org/guestbook/images/smilies/shudder.gif

[Dave Ashton]

Hi all!

As usual Im jumping in a bit late and a lot of my opinions have already been stated. I'm a big supporter of the flat tax. I'm also a big supporter of going to the range....
instinctive shooting stuff is one of my favorites. AGC and Rob, too bad I couldn't get you guys down to Range 19 at FBNC...you would have a blast...literally!!

Have a great day everyone

[John Bridge]

Howdy, Dave.

Jim, yeah. :(

P.S. Jim, Maybe you're not stealing those smilies correctly. Check with Harry. He's an expert. :D

[Terry O'Neill]

You'd better be careful. Barney Frank could get wind of this conversation :eek:

[stullis]

Heck, we have companies that move out of the state (MN) to get to more favorable business climates ie. Wisconsin, SD and ND. Now, just generally speaking, the quality of life/services offered in those states sucks.

I'd be more interested in hearing some of our Canadian friends explain why they dislike the GST/ VAT.

The tax code is too complicated and convuluted. Something is wrong when you can give the same data to 100 different accountants and get 100 different tax liabilities. No wonder everybody feels screwed.

The flat tax does not eliminate all the BS paperwork and mish-mash rules. A sales tax would simplify the tax code.
Basic needs such as basic food, basic clothing, basic healthcare, could be tax exempt. Tax everything else.

[John Bridge]

At day's end, I could go for a sales tax. But please let's not forget that the Constitution would have to be amended. A sales tax would have to be specifically allowed, and the income tax would have to be repealed at the same time. Don't let those bastards keep the income tax.

[flatfloor]

Interesting, no one spoke against the flat tax. Everbody had ideas on how it should be implemented but not one nay. I'm am seriously going to contact my congressman. I emailed him last week about something else and he actually responded.

BTW he's Felix Grucci, patriarch of the Grucci Fireworks Co. The guy we were going to have do the fireworks at John's Fall Festival last year.

Here's a great site for tracking what's going on and getting a hold of Sens. & Reps.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

[stullis]

Thought I said I didn't like the Flat tax because it doesn't eliminate the complicated tax code.

[flatfloor]

Yes you did, sorry I missed that.

The idea behind the flat tax is to uncomplicate the tax laws. Properly crafted there wouldn't be any tax laws just one.

[stullis]

LOL "Properly crafted" hehe that was a good one! :D

Flat tax would still allow Congress to convulute it even more. You would still have to file your income tax yearly. More paperwork for the average joe.

Scrap it and you needn't file a return ever again.

Think of the trees that could be saved! ;)

Seems to me that I was told that originally income tax was not allowed by the Constitution. Somehow that got changed and lost in history.

Anyhow, the government needs money to provide the services we all seem to want so we need taxes. Just feel the sales tax would be the fairest with basic needs being tax free.

Of course then our mighty politicians would have to come up with some new white collar crime methods to screw us. Oh that's right, it ain't a crime if they say it ain't. ;)

[John Bridge]

Nothing was lost in history. The Constitution was amended to allow for an income tax. That's the amendment you will need to repeal before you allow for a national sales tax.

[flatfloor]

Thought I'd resurrect this one in view of the Enron's and Worldcoms and who knows what else.

I am particularly reopening it because there was talk of taking Social Security monies and investing it in the stock market. I'm not trying to do an "I told you so" just opening more dialogue on the subject. Has anyone noticed no one in DC is promoting the idea anymore?

[John Bridge]

Oh, I think that idea is still sound. It's just that our fearless leaders are such pandering goofs that none of them wants to mention it right now. But all in all, the stock market is the place for the funds.

You just have to take a long position in the market. The market WILL eventually recover. The mutuals will come back up, and utilities are always good. I'm talking legit utilities. ;)

The way SS is set up right now I probably won't even apply for it. I intend to have more income than I would be allowed. Sort of a let down after contributing big time throughout my life. I was fourteen when I had to get my card.

[flatfloor]

Once you hit 65 you can make as much as you want.

I had a card at 14 also, had to have one for the Camel Driver job.

[Sonnie Layne]

I got one at 15, then another at 18, different numbers and all!!

[flatfloor]

Better check and see where any contributions you and your employers made are going, get it straightened out NOW! :)

[rgfloor]

Jim, not true about making as much as you want after 65. After about $12000 they take away $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn over $12000.

[John Bridge]

RG is right, Jim. They claim it's not welfare and that the money is in your own account, but that's not true. Based on your income, you might not get a check at all.

On the other hand, the retirement checks our fearless leaders get are not considered income. Those pricks can and do draw the SS checks.

I just love it. ;)

[stullis]

A city boy, Kenny, moved to the country and bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day.

The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died."

Kenny replied, "Well then, just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it
already."

Kenny said, "OK then, just unload the donkey."

The farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

Kenny, "I'm going to raffle him off."

Farmer, " You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

Kenny, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."

A month later the farmer met up with Kenny and asked, "What
happened with that dead donkey?"

Kenny, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898.00."

Farmer, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Kenny, " Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Kenny grew up and eventually became the chairman of Enron.

:D

[kdzgon]

Originally posted by rgfloor
Jim, not true about making as much as you want after 65. After about $12000 they take away $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn over $12000.

Jim is right, here.

As of January 2000, the Retirement Earnings Test has been eliminated for individuals age 65-69. It remains in effect for those ages 62 through 64. A modified test applies for the year an individual reaches age 65.

Under age 65 in 2002 can earn no more than $11,280/yr., but no more than $940/mo.(important diff. if you are self-employed). Earn more than that and one dollar in benefits will be withheld for every $2 in earnings above the limit.

If an individual reaches 65 in 2002, he/she can earn $30,000/yr., but no more than $2,500/mo.

For the months prior to attaining age 65, one dollar in benefits will be withheld for every $3 in earnings above the limit. There is no limit on earnings beginning the month an individual attains age 65.

No matter what, you still must pay into the system for current earnings, even if you are collecting benefits.

Can be confusing, no? :)

edited to add: Social security benefits can still be taxable despite the taxpayer being over the age of 65, depending on how much other income you have. The only thing that changes is you no longer lose any benefits once you turn 65.

[flatfloor]

Thanks Laurie, I should have known you would clarify that but did I wait? Nooooooo. Ran over to my bookmark for SS and was already to post and TaDa! :)

[John Bridge]

Okay, just to make sure I'm clear on this (am I ever clear on anything?), you're saying once I'm 65 I can make as much money as I want and still draw SS. Is that what you are saying?

[flatfloor]

I'm not making the same mistake twice, wait for Laurie.:)

[kdzgon]

Jim, you did just fine on your own - I was just confirming what you had said. :)

Yes, John, starting with the month (not just the year) you reach 65, you can earn as much as you want and not forfeit any SS benefits. You will still have to pay social security tax (up to the current limit for that year), and you may pay income tax on up to 80% of your social security when you file your annual tax return, but your social security check will remain the same.

Laurie

[flatfloor]

and you may pay income tax on up to 80% of your social security

Laurie, by that your saying all other income + SS then figure your tax right? SS income is not figured at a different rate correct?

[kdzgon]

SS is not figured at a different rate per se, but not all of SS is taxable. A percentage may be taxable, depending on how much other income you have. SS only ends up taxed at a different rate if you get knocked into the next highest bracket when it's added to your other income. Another problem is if SS gets added to taxable income, it also reduces some other expenses, like medical (lottery winnings have the same effect :( ). (Sorry it is not really a simple answer.)

If anyone wants me to give them a general idea as to how much SS might be taxed with some other income numbers, feel free to use my e-mail.

Laurie

[flatfloor]

I meant to post this earlier. http://www.ssa.gov/planners/calculators.htm

You can find out what sort of SS benefits you can expect.

[John Bridge]

Jim,

I did the quick test. They tell me I might get around 1700 a month. Guess Patti's gonna hafta get a job, cause the way I figure it, that'll pretty much cover the beer and maybe a burger once in a while. ;)

[flatfloor]

Weelllll, you were never going to retire anyhow. :D $1700/mo buys one hell of a new truck.

[tileguytodd]

Lets see,a switch from miller to lonestar would create astronomical savings.Divide that by the savings in Medical insurance costs because medicare will kick in.Add to that 8 weeks of unpaid vacation by JBS and i figure its KFC TIME :D

[John Bridge]

Todd, I can go along with most of that, all except the Lone Star. Have you ever actually tried to drink that stuff? :D

[kdzgon]

John, you just need the Lonestar to serve to those no-good freeloadin' guests that show up every now and then....gets rid of 'em before you even have to feed 'em too much - saves on groceries :D

[Chaz]

I think that with the Montezuma's Revenge which would be inflicted on you, would more than override any savings you would accrue by switching from Miller.

'Sides you'd be better to switch from Miller to Guinness just to tweak John a lil' :-)

[kdzgon]

http://www.icsi.net/~mosnar/images/armadillo.jpg

http://www.icsi.net/~mosnar/images/huntingposter.jpg

Is that a turkey on that poster?? (And I know that's not a moose :) )

John, how can you NOT serve the "official beer of Texas"??

[bbcamp]

Did someone mention "moose?"

http://zooplace.com/moose.gif http://zooplace.com/moose.gifhttp://zooplace.com/moose.gif
http://zooplace.com/moose.gifhttp://zooplace.com/moose.gif http://zooplace.com/moose.gif

It's a Moose Stampede! (or a moose race.)

[John Bridge]

I'm a patriotic Texas transplant, but there's a limit, you know? Maybe because I came from the West Coast I'm a little too refined. :D

https://store.corona.com/images/corona_site/interface-maingraphic.jpg

[bbcamp]

You da Man!

[Hobbit]

I'm a patriotic Texas transplant, but there's a limit, you know? Maybe because I came from the West Coast I'm a little too refined.

Yeah,.......what John said. On accounta we're not from this zip code-----we be too refined.http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/cool/cool030.gif

John.....John?? Whats refined mean?? We can't drink that Lone Star stuff???


Hmm. John, maybe we better rethink our position on this...?? Huh?? http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/ernaehrung/ernaehrung012.gif

[Sonnie Layne]

you suggested that John get LS for those unwanted guests....I'm rethinking my visit coming up in two weeks :)

Uhh,, John, never mind, we'll bring our own hootch :D

[John Bridge]

Sonnie,

I done tole you you don't have to bring anything. Just tell me what to get. If you don't tell me nothin', all I'll have is Corona and Rolling Rock and maybe a little Tecate, and Miller High Life, of course. :)

And tell me which cut of beef you wanna cook on my cooker.