[Damn True]

Also most of those 'advances' were made by scientist who were paid by the state, who in turn get their money from...

Let's see:

GW Carvers lab at Tuskeegee was largely funded by the Ford Motor Company, not the state.

Westinghouse: Originators of the Rotary Steam Engine, Provision of Electric Power Networks, Oil filler transfomers, High Voltage power transmission, Dielsel/Electric locomotives, Utility steam electic generators, tungsten fillament electric light bulbs, practical radio, circuit breakers, television tubes, long range ground radar.

The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, introduced in 1971.

The transistor was invented by Bell Labs.

DuPont created stable TNT, a method of producing ammonia, cellophane, neoprene, Freon (co developed with GM then 1/2 owned by DuPont), Nylon, the first plutonium production plant, Dacron, Mylar, Lycra, Tyvek, Kevlar and Nomex.

Pfizer was the first to produce citric acid and vitamin-C, commercial pennicillin, and polio vaccine.

IBM created the first Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator.

Certainly, academia has been responsible for many advancements but those labs are largely funded by business. And it takes business to make those dreams and discoveries into actual products. Stifle that, and those advancements will remain theoretical.

 

[Damn True]

Instead of looking at the actual tax rate I'd like to see what the average tax paid by income is. The more money you make the more opportunities you have to hide said money from the government.

Which again supports the idea of flat rate revenue or sales taxes.

 

[Silver]

Take two seconds to attempt to comprehend the point I am making rather than looking for an opportunity to wave your imagined intellectual, google fueled dick in the air.

You're the retard who can't even read a tax table properly or understand the idea of a marginal tax rate.

Mind you, getting chastened by a towering intellect such as yourself does hurt, I must admit. Whatever shall I do?

 

[Westy]

Which again supports the idea of flat rate revenue or sales taxes.

What do you think about a flat consumption tax?

 

[Damn True]

You're the retard who can't even read a tax table properly or understand the idea of a marginal tax rate.

Mind you, getting chastened by a towering intellect such as yourself does hurt, I must admit. Whatever shall I do?

Again, ignoring the point of the discussion and resorting to insults. Very "intellectual" of you.

 

[Changleen]

DT, I was going to take the time to respond individually to all your points above, but I'll just wrap it up quickly by saying "You're wrong".

 

[Silver]

Again, ignoring the point of the discussion and resorting to insults. Very "intellectual" of you.

Did you ever look up those marginal tax rates pre-Reagan, by the way? Maybe you'll shut up before you make yourself look stupider.

 

[Damn True]

What do you think about a flat consumption tax?

Thank you for pointing this out. I should actually have used the term "consumption tax" above rather than sales tax because it applies more accurately to my point.

The following is simplified of course:
A consumption tax is the same as a flat sales tax only it is applied to all goods and services that are purchased by consumers or production entities.

Essentially the idea is that anything that is purchased by anyone or any company is taxed at the same rate. Regardless if it is you buying a gallon of milk or GM buying 100,000 tires both are taxed.

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.

 

[Changleen]

Come on, what about the fact that if the US adopted a flat rate as you suggested, it would go bust in 30 seconds?

 

[Westy]

Thank you for pointing this out. I should actually have used the term "consumption tax" above rather than sales tax because it applies more accurately to my point.

The following is simplified of course:
A consumption tax is the same as a flat sales tax only it is applied to all goods and services that are purchased by consumers or production entities.

Essentially the idea is that anything that is purchased by anyone or any company is taxed at the same rate. Regardless if it is you buying a gallon of milk or GM buying 100,000 tires both are taxed.

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.

I kind of like the idea but it seems to have some holes. Does a company paying an employee considered purchasing a service? If not does the same apply for a contractor or temp?

I am intrigued by a consumption tax for simplicity but not sure if I support a "Flat" rate. Like you said basic requirements like food should be at a lower rate but what about products that imply a higher direct cost to society like hazardous materials and alcoholic beverages?

 

[reflux]

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.

But by simply allowing small exceptions to the rule, politicians (on both sides) would be creating more special "exceptions" to advance their own agendas. Before you know it, we'd back to a similar IRC that we have now.


Interesting thing I read the other day:there have been some reports that income mobility has decreased in recent years. That can't be good for the general public.


I didn't see an answer, but does anyone believe the elimination of the estate tax is a good thing?

 

[Damn True]

Did you ever look up those marginal tax rates pre-Reagan, by the way? Maybe you'll shut up before you make yourself look stupider.

Again with the insults, do you feel better about yourself after that? If you need to do it to get through the day go ahead, but seriously, you should seek counseling.

Lets see:
Marginal tax rates were stable at 70% for the top quintile from 75-80, then began to decline to a low of 28% in 1991. Since then they have been increasing and were at just a tick under 40% in 1999.

There is considerable debate about the validity of marginal rates as a measurement of potential or actual revenue since they don't take into account as many factors as total effective tax rates. Total ffective rates consider available deductions and exemptions and therefore often illustrate a lower overall taxation.

BTW
http://www.businessknowhow.com/money/lowertax.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443.cfm
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/taxesandtaxation/marginaltax.html

 

[Damn True]

I didn't see an answer, but does anyone believe the elimination of the estate tax is a good thing?

Absolutely. The value of the estate has already been taxed.

If you work for 40 years, your income over that time is taxed. If in that time you purchase a home, that property is taxed. If you invest the rest of that money it is either taxed upon deposit or withdrawl depending on they type of investment. Now if you die and you will that estate, the home and your investments, to your family or a charity unless it is in a trust it gets taxed again. IMO that is wrong.

I s'pose we could say that the value over time has increased, but unless you are in CA in a prop-13 home, the taxes on the home have also gone up as well.

 

[Toshi]

Absolutely. The value of the estate has already been taxed.

If you work for 40 years, your income over that time is taxed. If in that time you purchase a home, that property is taxed. If you invest the rest of that money it is either taxed upon deposit or withdrawl depending on they type of investment.

this isn't true if your investment was tax deferred and you never withdrew until retirement (when you're in a low tax bracket, thus the large estate to pass on).

 

[reflux]

Absolutely. The value of the estate has already been taxed.

If you work for 40 years, your income over that time is taxed. If in that time you purchase a home, that property is taxed. If you invest the rest of that money it is either taxed upon deposit or withdrawl depending on they type of investment. Now if you die and you will that estate, the home and your investments, to your family or a charity unless it is in a trust it gets taxed again. IMO that is wrong.

I s'pose we could say that the value over time has increased, but unless you are in CA in a prop-13 home, the taxes on the home have also gone up as well.

read my previous post and apply it to assets that aren't real estate (no property tax, just unrealized gains).

 

[Damn True]

I kind of like the idea but it seems to have some holes. Does a company paying an employee considered purchasing a service? If not does the same apply for a contractor or temp?

I am intrigued by a consumption tax for simplicity but not sure if I support a "Flat" rate. Like you said basic requirements like food should be at a lower rate but what about products that imply a higher direct cost to society like hazardous materials and alcoholic beverages?

The most viable plan that I am aware of (Im sure there are others, I haven't read Steve Forbes version) is in the book "The National Retail Sales Tax" by former Congressman Billy Tauzin. Under his suggested format the expense of employee payroll would not be taxed as it would allow for higher rates of pay resulting in more money flying around in the economy and increased tax revenue.

The biggest obstacle to this type of change is the government itself. It would reduce the IRS by 2/3 and severely hamper the legislative branch in its ability to offer tax breaks to company "X" as a means to attract the new plant to their district. Additionaly, it would eliminate nearly every tax loophole and exemption currently in existance. From everything Ive read it is an astronomically better alternative to the status quo but most likely far to radical a change to ever be enacted.

 

[Damn True]

this isn't true if your investment was tax deferred and you never withdrew until retirement (when you're in a low tax bracket, thus the large estate to pass on).

Well, yeah yer right there. But if the whole thing is in a trust it's pretty well protected regardless right?

 

[Silver]

Again with the insults, do you feel better about yourself after that? If you need to do it to get through the day go ahead, but seriously, you should seek counseling.

Lets see:
Marginal tax rates were stable at 70% for the top quintile from 75-80, then began to decline to a low of 28% in 1991. Since then they have been increasing and were at just a tick under 40% in 1999.

There is considerable debate about the validity of marginal rates as a measurement of potential or actual revenue since they don't take into account as many factors as total effective tax rates. Total ffective rates consider available deductions and exemptions and therefore often illustrate a lower overall taxation.

And your argument was the getting rid of the current cap and increasing social security taxes would stifle growth and innovation, leading to "socialism." But, I'm still waiting to hear how Jobs and Wozniak possibly could have started Apple before the Reagan tax cuts.

Like I said, you don't understand how marginal tax rates work, you don't understand how to compute a simple tax bracket, and you expect me to take you seriously? You've got a mishmash of about 10 different points thrown in between rants and tirades about liberals.

You throw out misleading numbers (Like attempting to show how the rich get screwed, by just using federal tax numbers), screw up the math (the real percentage was only about 500 times smaller than you thought it was), and then expect to me say, "Hey, you were right all along?"

As far as the insults go, you were fairly rude to Toshi right off the bat, and you dismissed Changleen as "Mr. Marx." So, you know what, it does feel better. You should be turning the other cheek anyways, instead of commenting on me for "looking for an opportunity to wave your imagined intellectual, google fueled dick in the air."

 

[Silver]

I am intrigued by a consumption tax for simplicity but not sure if I support a "Flat" rate.

With a consumption tax, there isn't any other way to do it than to have a flat rate.

The consumption tax is a pipedream though. To make it revenue neutral, you would be looking at a tax inclusive rate north of 30% to replace all federal taxes, and that's assuming pretty good compliance and a very broad tax base (housing, health insurance, baby formula...all taxed) with no erosion due to political pressure, which would be inevitable.

You'd probably end up with a tax exclusive rate upwards of 60 percent, and it could even get higher with a smaller base, which would increase evasion, which would increase the rate again.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Thank you for pointing this out. I should actually have used the term "consumption tax" above rather than sales tax because it applies more accurately to my point.

The following is simplified of course:
A consumption tax is the same as a flat sales tax only it is applied to all goods and services that are purchased by consumers or production entities.

Essentially the idea is that anything that is purchased by anyone or any company is taxed at the same rate. Regardless if it is you buying a gallon of milk or GM buying 100,000 tires both are taxed.

IMO there would have to be exceptions in this, most likely on food and housing below a certain level.

hahahahaha.. there are a gazillion ways around consumption taxes, even if the gvmt establish a record for money transfers... it just makes a more informal economy, and would hurt banking and etc, etc, etc....

the same with flat rate taxes. they are actually NOT flat rate, the bigger your income, the more cost effective it gets to bury your tax-corpses and the lower your actual % will get..

 

[MikeD]

"Consumption tax" is a crock. The rich want it because...guess what...they don't use nearly as much of their income in consumption as the poor. Someone making $20-40k a year uses 95% or more (that's a guess) of his income buying/consuming things to live (food, housing, transport, education).

Those in the middle ground...upper-middle-class, $100-300k or so a year, are probably saving and investing a lot more money than the people who make less, but a good chunk of their change is probably wrapped up in mortgage(s) and automobiles and school for their kids.

Someone really rich, except maybe idiotic sports and music stars who manage to live paycheck-to-million-dollar-paycheck, spends proportionally little of his income on his mansion and yacht (and food and college and bath towels, etc.), and uses the majority of his money to make more money. If he doesn't, he won't stay rich very long.

So yeah, consumption tax is great...for him. Sucks to have to pay more proportionally when you're making a tiny fraction of what he does, though. Flat tax is at least philosophically (and not being an economist, I can't say if it's feasible) fair and appealing.

And it's amazing what big business, the "independent" force from government, seeking to de-regulate the economy at every and any turn, will take from government in subsidies and tax breaks, and indeed, engineer such financial boons through political leverage.

As to 50-100 years ago being the time when we looked up to wealthy industrialists, well, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have disagreed, and those whose lives were lost and broken under the thumb of trusts and robber-barons might disagree as well.

There might have been a few standout heroes and rags-to-riches stories, but that's 10% of the story.

Goverment can and should be used by a population to ensure that economic success remains in the best interests of the population. Competition and profit are great and essential (ed: in fact, the *only* realistic motivation) to keep business efficient and strong, so long as there's a giant dis-incentive to prey on society rather than provide it quality, safe products and services. Unregulated, businesses seek profit without care for safety... it's nice to think that the market will force out unsafe or unsavory products, but that's just not the case, especially in the short-term. And I don't want to be the guy in the exploding Pinto that convinces other people not to buy Pintos, or watch my child's brains liquify from an E. Coli infection after a bad hamburger that convinces people to use a different fast-food chain.

Funny thing is that OSHA has tons of power to fix things in places where it's not needed, and where it'd be applicable (industrial and meat-packing settings), the gov't has made it irrelevant.

Wow, that's off-topic.

MD

 

[valve bouncer]

Good post Michael. See you learnt some common sense in the land of the cool people.

 

[MikeD]

Good post Michael. See you learnt some common sense in the land of the cool people.

Yep, that's where I learned it...

 

[Silver]

So yeah, consumption tax is great...for him. Sucks to have to pay more proportionally when you're making a tiny fraction of what he does, though. Flat tax is at least philosophically (and not being an economist, I can't say if it's feasible) fair and appealing.

It is feasible. Many countries in eastern Europe have flat income taxes. The Steve Forbes plan mentioned? The little hook there is that it only applies to wage income. I hear that's nice if you happen to inherit a publishing business from your father.

The argument that a flat tax would enable us to get rid of the IRS and tax returns is laughable, if you assume that we are going to tax more than just wage income. Then it simply doesn't help.

I would agree that a flat tax on all income would be fair from a philosophical point of view, but that makes a rather large assumption that the poor and the rich both get the same benefits of living in American society. One look at how the criminal justice system works would tend to make me think that we aren't all on a level playing field.

 

[MikeD]

One look at how the criminal justice system works would tend to make me think that we aren't all on a level playing field.

Somehow I don't see the government saying, "Yeah, since we're totally ****ing you over in the criminal justice system, here's a tax break..."

 

[Silver]

Somehow I don't see the government saying, "Yeah, since we're totally ****ing you over in the criminal justice system, here's a tax break..."

I'm just waiting for them to bring back workhouses and debtor's prisons. Then Damn True can fulfill his lifelong dream of screaming at an orphan asking for more gruel, "MORE? You want more?"

 

[MikeD]

Well, now, I wasn't actually saying that the CJ system inherently screws over the poor, (but it sure does favor the rich...guess it's 2 sides of 1 coin) just thought it was a funny thing to imagine the attourney general and the IRS coming out to say.

 

[valve bouncer]

Yep, that's where I learned it...

Don't talk sh*t in my ear mate. You've become noticeably more cleverer since you got back.

 

[MikeD]

Don't talk sh*t in my ear mate. You've become noticeably more cleverer since you got back.

Hah, that's because I've been posting in here less. That's a MUCH smarter way to live!

I actually DID learn to hold my tongue from the Kiwis...

(and I learned how to flatten every vowel into an indistinct short "i" sound. Yis, I did.)

MD

 

[valve bouncer]

Hah, that's because I've been posting in here less. That's a MUCH smarter way to live!

I actually DID learn to hold my tongue from the Kiwis...

(and I learned how to flatten every vowel into an indistinct short "i" sound. Yis, I did.)

MD

Me and Partsy are still trying to work out why the hell you wanted to go to Kiwi when everything is so much better in Australia.

 

[MikeD]

Me and Partsy are still trying to work out why the hell you wanted to go to Kiwi when everything is so much better in Australia.

I think Warwick is PO'd at me, too...I really should have gone to visit, but was just out of cash at the end...

 

[valve bouncer]

I think Warwick is PO'd at me, too...I really should have gone to visit, but was just out of cash at the end...

That ginger c*nt. What's he up to nowadays anyway? You know when he came to Japan he spewed in my car. The f*cker

 

[Silver]

That ginger c*nt.

Could I get a translation on that?

I see the filters have been vb proofed

 

[MikeD]

That ginger c*nt. What's he up to nowadays anyway? You know when he came to Japan he spewed in my car. The f*cker

I have no idea...he's not living on AIM like he used to. Maybe he got a life...?

MD

 

[valve bouncer]

Could I get a translation on that?

I see the filters have been vb proofed

No mate, I put the star there, didn't wanna piss off the big fella more than I have already. You can still type cunt if you want but I don't wanna be gratutious.