Taxes

There was a time in our history when the government didn't collect money and do what they are doing, and they didn't interfere with business.

It didn't work... Businesses without controls, used and abused their employees, treating them as expendable and as sources of further income trapping them into by various means, both financially and physically.

It was the organization of the people (in this case, unions), and the pressure they brought to bear on both companies and the 'small government' (that you claim to want again), into putting controls into place. Those companies then became the corporations today that are doing the same thing under the guise of 'prosperity', when the truth is that they only mean prosperity for them, at whatever cost to the people and the planet that they can get away with.

THAT, is why we need an organization (government) imposing controls on companies.

This idea that the 'rich' will step in to help the poor ignores the fact that they got rich, by taking more then their share out of the efforts and labors of others.

The resdistribution of it, in such a manner as I suggested, addresses that imbalance while still giving the people with the drive to 'do' the incentive to do so, while helping all their fellow people.

Do you understand that as time goes on, companies need fewer and fewer employees? That the population is growing? There is an imbalance in the idea that there are 'jobs' for everyone, and the reality. If it wasnt for government 'interference' in terms of incentives for companies to keep employees on, and hire more, the 'unemployment rate would be much higher then it is.

The concept behind having a governing body isn't a bad one... its the reality of what we have that is.

We need to develop a system that addresses the imbalance... To me, that means making sure that everyone is able to live without fear of dying from the elements or lack of food and have the opportunity to follow their passion in life in an atmosphere that isn't based on the fear of death.

The segment of the population that wants to 'do nothing but sit on their couch and collect a check' is much smaller then most people seem to conceive of it being.

Most people have a drive to do something other then that. Our system currently makes it so that they have to concentrate solely upon survival, without ever giving them a chance to expand beyond that. That is what a GIS removes...

The cost of it is smaller then the alternative we use now, which is to throw people in jail when they feel they have no other option but to commit a crime in order to survive.

In a system where there is a GIS and everyone is guarenteed the basic needs to live and grow as people, those who commit financial/theft type crimes, do so from no other stance then one of greed, which applies to all levels of income. Those who wish to be 'rich' can still do so, and as everyone is operating on the same scale, there will be zero difference to their daily lives, while the difference on every level below that of being wealthy will be great, as a positive...

 

hmm yeah I guess. if people werent so greedy, and would just have enough to survive and afford (a few) luxuries. then what im saying would work... whats the point of a company such as apple having billions of dollars that they dont even know what to do with so they do a share buy back which im sure will just make them even more money, lol they could be using that to help repair our country and help the poor....

 

In support of the idea that the majority of people have a better work ethic than to take $24,000 a year for doing nothing, most industrialized nations have a welfare system in place. The majority of citizens still choose to work instead of going on welfare.

In support of the idea of a tax distribution to serve as a great equalizer, I think the biggest factor in milking the system is citizens that grow up in a culture of poverty, citizens who grow up so poor and with so little opportunity that they simply don't know how to live in any world but the world in which they already live.

Ensuring that everyone receives a liveable wage ensures that this culture of poverty does not exist. Ensuring that the culture of poverty not exist ensures that everyone has equal opportunities to achieve more.

I think the current welfare system, in my country at least, is designed to keep people in poverty. I think the current welfare system needs a complete overhaul, but I have no problem with a welfare system that encourages achievement and opportunity rather than poverty.

Private companies have a bottom line, and that bottom line is profit. In order to increase profit, other elements are decreased. Things like quality, safety, etc.

Not to mention, profit would have to come from somewhere. For example, if tax money did not fund roads then literally every road would have to be a toll road and everyone would end up paying a form of tax anyways.

Taxes are not bad as a concept. Taxes are meant to ensure that a country runs smoothly in a way that benefits all citizens. The problem is not taxes, the problem is how taxes are spent.

 

why cant people just donate money to fix the roads? i sure would be paying to the private company to do those repairs.... they could have one of those temperature things to show how much each private company would need to raise in every county in order to complete the repairs lol

 

You have to admit that the money spent on the cars, boats, parties, private jets, hookers, drugs and so forth are providing a source of income to those who are producing/providing each of those goods and services.

The closer to the source efforts are made to solve problems, the more efficient, cost effective, and easily the disclosure/elimination of corruption they become.

Looking at the National debt accumulation over the last 100 years, it should be obvious to everyone/anyone that the U.S. Federal government has a severe spending problem. And looking at State and local governments indebtedness the Federal income tax redistribution system has done little more than create a rapidly approaching crisis.

If not for the 16th amendment, States would be free to tax their citizens/businesses as necessary to provide the services demanded by their citizens and pay their fair share of the Federal budget each year, which would be more in line with how our Constitution intended. One has to also understand the 17th amendment has made U.S. politics at all levels, a National process more easily controlled by the Republican and Democrat parties, as well as those with large pocketbooks, diminishing greatly and often eliminating the consent of those governed.

 

Funny thing though... pretty much 100% of what a poor person gets, is injected straight back into the economy, so the idea that giving money or breaks or such to the wealthy is somehow good for the economy is false. They take their money and put it where it will do their pocket book the best, not always even in their own country. One person owning 16 homes in different places for themselves (or in one the size of 16 homes), does less for the economy then 16 people owning 16 homes.

So if you want to provide a source of income for those who are producing goods and services, you don't favor the already wealthy, you favor those who will spend it and keep the money in circulation rather then hoarding it (wether in terms of cash or assets).

Yes, some of the wealthy use their money to invest in operations that provide jobs and the like, and that is good, however, having a vibrant, healthy and free population is even better.

People shouldn't be getting hung up on the numbers I used, as they were examples in terms of what the poverty level is.

From one rural to city, and from city to city and province to province, that would be different. The point wasn't that everyone would get X amount of dollars to party with. It is to give everyone the ability to have shelter, food, water, communications, heat and electricty, in order to eliminate people living in poverty.

If someone wanted to do absolutely nothing at all except stare at the wall all day if given the chance, I would happily see them getting enough to do so rather then put them in the position where they felt they needed to steal from someone (anyone) else to eat and then end up paying 80k+per year to put them in jail... and who knows... maybe if they had the chance to stare at the wall for a couple of years, they would become motivated to get something more out of life.

If you had (or have) a child, would you want them to have a world that would let them die for lack of their needs, be forced into a position where they did something drastic to survive, or forced to conform to anothers vision of what they should do? Or would you rather have it be a world that at the bare minimum, regardless of what happened to them (or you), that you knew they would at least have everything they need to survive in a happy and healthy fashion?

If they choose to excel and work hard, they can still become 'rich', or they could work a little and just get by, or yes, even sit on their ass and stare at the wall... Most are going to find their passion in life and do it... and you know what? A lot of peole really do like working... There are a lot that are tired of working under the conditions that they are, and would love a chance to explore another avenue, perhaps even starting a business or idea that changes the world... if they just weren't trapped into the survival cycle of day to day hand to mouth living that what we have currently imposes on us.

Something that was said earlier keeps poking its head up...

If you are unhappy about having your income as it is now, taxed at whatever tax rate it is, how is it that you think it makes sense for someone with less income then you, should be paying? If you are paying too much at your level (whatever level that is), how is it concievably possible that someone with LESS then you can afford anything?

 

Instead of giving people $24,000/yr for doing nothing the government should have "New Deal" programs like infrastructure investment. Everyone would be contributing something and gaining skills at the same time.

Other than that I support progressive taxes. Not because they're fair necessarily, but because they've been shown to work.

 

Agree. I like to compare the wealthy to squirrels. If you give them more acorns they'll just find more hollow trees (aka Caymen Is.) to stuff them in.

Just look at Warren Buffet for example. He's worth 44 billion yet he lives a house bought back in the 70's and drives an older Cadillac. The reason wealthy people are rich is because they don't spend. Hence, the reason trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

Okay, so heres the problem with that... What about someone who is disabled and unable to work? If they get a special dispensation because they are disabled, that brings the issue of fraud (and fraud prevention) back into it and the general air that of suspicion.

Why the assumption that people need something other than 'wanting more' in order to motivate them to take part in an equal and open society?

It shouldn't be a 'welfare' system... it should just be a basic citizen right... If you need it, its there, if you work enough and you don't need it, then you don't need it. If you make more then enough to support yourself and get a little ahead, then you start paying taxes... the more you make the more you pay til the cap at 50%.

Those who would do nothing out of spite because they could, are likely better off not being in the workforce where they are going to spread that sort of thing around anyway.

BTW, society and community is a set up as a contract between individuals.

In the case of our system here, it is automatically an invalid contract. We don't enter into it with full knowledge of it (most people don't even realize they do), therefore it is invalid on the grounds that all parties must be in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other), as well as that there must be something of value exchanged. The 'social contract' as it stands does not do that.

With a GIS in place, it would make the social contract actually valid... If it was done as a formal thing when a person became an adult (however that is defined), they read and sign the contract and become eligable for the GIS along with other government services. If they are not of adult age, then they fall under their parents (or guardians) contract until such a time.

See, the problem is that people keep wanting to 'protect their own' and seem to be willing to sacrifice anyone else to do so... That is why unions arent as good of a thing as they should be. Yes, they protect their members and make sure they get a 'fair' deal, but the cost of it is carried by every person NOT a member of that union. The 'middle class' want's to protect their position, at least from sliding, if that means that some people have to be poor to do so and die, hey so be it... The rich are the same...

Funny thing is, it's usually the poor who are most willing to discuss a system that is viable for EVERYONE... You know why? Because they hope to one day not be poor, and by making it fair for everyone, they would have the best shot of making it out of poor, to the middle class and yes, if they worked hard and smart enough, even to the rich...

Think about the consequences of what happens if each group were to fail in their goals of protecting their own status...

The rich would become the middle class, perhaps become poor... the middle class would become poor...

The poor die.

 

Under your modification in tax structure then those in that category would pay a higher amount and I can almost guarantee you that does not mean that those who need it the most will necessarily get it.

Those people who are in those income brackets are for the most part working just as long hours and for the same reasons as the people who earn less, the only difference is that they are paid at a higher rate (earn more). They also at times take on far more responsibility for fellow man than given credit for as they are accountable for profitability. They also in many cases employ others who then can afford to feed their families.

No one is entitled to someone else's wealth, that is not what this is about, or it should not be. We already have a system in place that does a percentile tax base. People just do not like how the money is allocated by government.

The larger issue is that the social structures and system is not working and the money that is allocated is not being used often as it should be. That we lack still affordable housing, dental, emergency mental health assistance, counseling and the list never ends, is a huge issue.

I am not resistant to paying taxes and I believe in social assistance within our society. I am disgusted that programs that need to be in place are not or are so badly funded or managed that they do not serve the purpose they should nor those they should.

Example, last year while waiting for a room for a procedure, I was for two days in with another lady who had been anorexic for 20 years. She had been in the hospital under total care for 6 months and was waiting for a spot to open up in a program to deal with her emotional issues. The wait time was 18 months. This is insane. To treat her for the eating part without the support for the emotional triggers is ridiculous. Not that she was getting the medical treatment but that there is no space to complete the treatments.

For years money has been thrown at these programs but they do not meet the needs. Fix the programs, direct the money to them then. In the mean time a minimal income needs to be in place. I agree with you that it also has to be based upon geographical as there are challenges that go with that which may require adjustments to the amounts needed to live.

There are many who earn well and manage to still show empathy for those who have less and would not more wish to see them starve, be without shelter or any other necessity.

As far as any other person or profession, I at best could only generalize. What they earn is their business and if they pay the taxes owed on that money, what they have left is theirs to do with as they wish.

In a nut shell I agree with you regarding every person should have a standard of living that is an acceptable norm but I do not feel that taxing to generate revenue to be put into systems that are not working is the answer.

Fix the systems of support so that they are accessible and target who they should and the efficiency achieved from doing that may net surprising results as far as the funding already there. Then add funding, through taxing if needed to further improve them.

We already have a base percentile of roughly 17% to 40%, so then a possible increase of a percentage point ot two across the board would offset those costs.

 

I think I get what the problem is here...

Might I suggest that you re-read what I suggested, and then do some math exercises?

Calculate what a person would pay making 548k/year and paying 29% (canada's current federal income tax rate for above 132k/year), and then calculate (or read off my chart in the first post) and see what they would pay under it...

Then come back and try again.

 

Oh, and just about the rest of the issues that need to be fixed, the whole system needs to be fixed... This was simply an idea for income taxes... we'll discuss the other issues in other threads.

 

why not here, thread title is pretty general.

 

Perhaps for the sake of argument it could be stipulated that the individual either had to secure some form of gainful employment or be collecting unemployment benefits and actively seeking work. if Tom is willing to entertain that. Otherwise there would arguably be hordes of people doing nothing and holding their hand out for the $24k that they were "entitled" to.

Much depends on perspective and the money & power addicts will not go for something that takes away an arbitrarily determined measure of "excess wealth" which this hypothetical tax system seem to be aiming to do.

A free market would invariably (and quickly) adjust the cost of basics to eat up the $24k much quicker- sending the effective poverty rate up. Costs of commodities would be affected by a broad based population with sudden access to disposable income... anticipated extra demand would spike the trading prices of things like aluminum, wheat, oil, and all other manner of raw material. Institute even the most well intended system seeking to effect fiscal justice and there will always be people clever enough to seek out the legal loopholes and exploit either the system of its recipients for purposes no more noble than personal gain.

Monday's news headline would report, every citizen living within the NAFTA territories will be guaranteed a yearly income of $24k US (or $24k CAN if we want currency with some actual value) and Tuesday's headline would chronicle the sudden spike of light sweet crude to $200 a barrel.

I think the tax is a very nice idea but is a disincentive for some to work and the government would find itself paying out so much that it would have no money to fund vital services and programs... perhaps printing more currency would be a solution but doing that would just hurt the currency's value- hurting the buying power of that "basic" $24k.

A question I might have is how would the income subsidies be administered? Would a recipient need to wait until tax time or could one enjoy regular prorated monthly government stipends in order to be able to make regular expenses and buy food?

I think Tom's system does address one part of the picture particularly well but the problem of government requiring so much tax money to run is one driving force behind the confusing tax code. perhaps first figure out what a government needs to administer the services it should be and not expanding its functions into things like micromanaging sectors of the economy and effecting monetary assistance intending to erase poverty when the very act of effecting economic justice through redistribution will send the practical poverty line up to where that $24k no longer is enough to meed the basic expenses.

Of course there's the thing about people making higher incomes being able to find tax havens to hide that money.. or choosing a form of income that is either tax deferred or exempt. Take away their loopholes and they'll find new ones... or have their government buddies sneak some sweetheart earmark riders on legislation that might be for approving funding to cover the costs of government mandated vaccination for school age children-- because no one would take the perilous step of holding up anything that is "for the children' as doing so would enable rival candidates for an upcoming election to pull out of context such matters in order to characterize the incumbent as not caring whether Johnny gets the dreaded pulsating West Nile measles that has killed everyone it has affected.

Further, until people begin to wake up and start re-valuing critical thinking skills and repairing the interpersonal dynamic of our culture, throwing any appreciable amount at the average citizen will almost certainly prove not only to be a waste of capital but also quite likely exacerbate the very issue that it's intended to "fix".

One likely reason that most government fixes ultimately fail is because fixing a problem Is most likely NOT the primary objective of the bureaucrats whose egos will place a far higher premium on being looked at as being a problem solver than on actually solving anything.

it's like how the government is handling high unemployment.. While a great deal can be done by unburdening the average tax payer through thoughtful reduction of the size of the bureaucracy that we taxpayers must fund, the governments very actions speak loudly of the obvious enormous political value of nursing a crisis like unemployment along so that when bills loudly promoted as relief for the jobless get procedurally stalled or outright rejected by the other party, leaders who vocally support the legislation who are slated to run against those not supporting it can smear the opposition as being heartless when the so-called obstructionist and cold hearted congressmen run for reelection. ANYTHING this or any other government claims as intended to help out the "little guy" is suspect at best.

I would guess that as originally set up, most economic systems promote the ideal of eliminating poverty while making little or no effort to solve an issue that carries a good deal of clout. It's likely far too valuable a political tool for those in government to simply relinquish by actually solving it. Class envy and warfare have been very much played politically here. If you want to show how heartless and corrupt an incumbent is just craft a piece of feel-good legislation "for the children" you know they will refuse to support and they've unwittingly written a campaign strategem to be used against them.

I hope that there's an answer somewhere in all that ^^

 

I am not the one who seems to feel that higher income earners are the devil incarnate.

This to me is a key issue in any change to the systems we have. If these are not addressed and fixed then any system is not going to be any better than what is already there.

Those who will have a guaranteed income will for the most part still need many of these services.

To divide the issues and not treat it as a whole is exactly what has caused many of the breakdowns in services. That is exactly what the government has done and it has not worked.

Without all being reworked then those that need assistance the most will still be without.

To increase income and not have affordable housing, access to services that they still will not be covered for such as extended medical and the list goes on, will not make their standard of living any better.

 

Some of the issues would need to be fixed either ahead of tax reform or concurrently with it... so there's unfortunately quite a lot that is made germane to this discussion.

 

... do the math ...

 

The root problem is that some people feel that they have every "right" to have as big a "footprint" as they can afford, muster, connive, or steal, on this, our communal blue marble. Their mommy and daddy never taught them to "share".

The process of acquiring wealth, in and of itself, is corrupting, just like the process of becoming a politician. One may start out with good intentions, and generous, but through the accumulation of wealth, it becomes a form of addiction, and more becomes "necessary" in order to get the same "fix".

Government is in the pocket of the wealthy, at least here in the U.S.

Fat chance of getting any real progress, in helping the poor, the unfortunate, or the disadvantaged. What individual in position to foment a change is truly willing? They'd have to be someone like Ghandi, or Jesus Christ.

I know by personal experience, as soon as you have more, you find more ways to spend it, on yourself, your family, etc. It goes on and on.

While I was working, I made about 50K/yr, and felt as if I couldn't get by on it (living in SoCal). Now, I'm retired, making 24K/yr, and still in the same boat. I don't understand how I could have been making twice as much, and not hardly able to pay for things. It just doesn't make sense.

But it's all so much b.s., the overriding concern with people possibly having too much personal pleasure (porno, prostitution, medical marijuana, etc.), and wish only to ban these sources of pleasure, rather than regulate them and let society profit from the proceeds,, and yet at the same time being completely ignorant of the much larger obscenity of a wealthy nation discarding or turning a blind eye toward its poor, regarding housing, medical costs, dental costs, etc.. There must be those in power who fear the possibility that others, whom they must despise, would be freed from pain. I suppose they may feel that pain is both "deserved", like some kind of divine retribution for misdeeds, and also a controlling factor, so that people aren't free to protest.

Keep 'em depressed and hurting. Otherwise, they'll be causing trouble. Stupid policy.

Well,,I got mine, so "fuck all",,right?

There oughtta be a law.

 

okay then... I will...


Current system: 548k @ 29% = $158,920.00
My suggestion: 548k @ scale = $127,600.00

for 148k @ 29% = $42,920.00
mine = $5500.00

Until a person hits an annual income of around 700k per year, they would be paying less then the current system we have here...

The point is that by the time you hit 700k per year, there is no reason you can't live life with most normal luxuries that are available. It doesn't mean you could light cuban cigars with 1000$ bills of course or stupid shit, but you are already well above what any reasonable person needs to live through life.

If you want to light cubans with 1000$ bills, then you can make more money and get to that point.

Everyone under the 700k mark, will be better off, and so would the economy, as they are the people who actually put money back into the economy on a circulating basis.

As your income goes above that point, the money tends to get locked into intangible 'investments' that neither create jobs, support others (besides the elites), or go right back into circulation.

...

as for the comments about loopholes and such... did you see me say there were any loopholes? did you see me say anything about exceptions? deductions? ANYTHING that would indicate there was ways to get around this?

No, it doesn't matter if you invest some of your money into your business, it was still income when it came in... no, it doesn't matter if you invested in your kids education, it was still income...

Comments about how it would be administered and such... the systems that are in place now, are already designed to handle extremely complex tax systems... it would cost LESS, both to implement, and to monitor then what we have now.

The idea that the cost of living would just keep spiraling up, is more then a little cynical and false... or at least anymore then it already does.

However, the system I described, doesn't change a single bit no matter how much the 'cost of living' goes up... Why you ask? Because if the cost of living goes up, so do poverty lines... If the cost of basic goods went up, so would the scale on the tax system along with everything else... negating the effect in reality.

The... 'well there is no way to make this happen, so it doesn't matter' attitude... Yeah, well as long as people sit back on their asses and say, oh nothing ever changes, whats the point in trying, then yes, you are 100% right... it will never happen....

If everyone who made under 700k stood up and with one voice said, this is what we want... it would be a reality.

 

Canadian taxes? Whatever the Canadians will accept is fine with me.