by Lore 98 Replies latest jw friends
Yes. Even if they find tax shelters - oftentimes those shelters result in the unintended consequences (I'm sure) of - TA DA! Job creation!
LOL. True. Oftentimes those jobs get created....offshore. But engaging in activity with no economic value other than lowering tax liabilities is probably not going to be a big net job creator when compared with investing in the economy.
Do you realize there is a tax credit for (business) moving expenses? Even if it's offshore?!! It should be a penalty.
Our tax system is broken.
I don't worry about the politics. Given enough time socialism will win out. It's inevitable. The 99% will get their share when the rich run out of consumers, and they can't find honest police to guard their perimeters. The poor don't need pitchforks and torches. They've got guns and gasoline.
I suppose you should then ask yourself if it is 'ethical to have a volunteer army filled with poor-middle class'? You might argue that they are two different things but they aren't really - taxes paid on a sliding scale determined by income, with the most wealthy paying more, could be said to be a sacrifice that might equal the sacrifice those less fortunate on the economic scale, pay to serve and protect. From the vetererans for common sense; snipped for brevity - sammies
------
| Had the researchers divided this fifth quintile into sets more commensurate with the first four, say in increments of about $12,000-$15,000, their findings would have further corroborated my contention that the number of individuals with military service decrease exponentially as the levels of income increase. Also indicated is that not one individual from a household with an income exceeding $246,333, the demographic more reasonablydesignated as the "wealthiest Americans," serves in the military. Given these and other discrepancies and abnormalities, it is clear that the Heritage Foundation Study is flawed, that it is either sloppy research or intended to deceive. In either case, it warrants little if any credibility and, not only does it fail to refute my thesis, it affirms it. One final point, given war's extreme profitability for the privileged and the wealthy (the corporatists, bankers, politicians - the military-industrial,Congressional complex) and the fact that with the AVF, they and/or their children will never step onto the battlefield and suffer war'sdeleterious effects, it is not surprising, therefore, that our nation is embroiled in a quagmire with the longest and most expensive war inAmerican history. As the wars and occupations continue virtually ignored except by the small percentage of Americans who are directly impacted by the killing and dying - members of the military and their families - voices from both ends of the political spectrum are calling for the reinstatement of the draft as a means of sharing the burden of military service, or to "reinvigorate" the peace movement. I have always opposed the draft as immoral and unconstitutional, but as the situation in this country has grown dire, drastic measures are required. Consequently, as much as it pains me to say, I think that the most plausible solution to what can only be described as war profiteering and a violation of the principle of universal obligation and shared sacrifice, is to reinstate the draft, but with a stipulation. Unless and until these gross economic inequities are remedied and educational and employment opportunities are made available to all, only those young men and women whose families earn an annual income exceeding $250,000 will be subject to mandatory military service with few if any exemptions other than REAL, documented and severe medical impairment. This "Fairness Draft," will accomplish three important goals. First, it helps furnish the manpower necessary to sustain the AVF and ensure the national defense. Second, it satisfies both the intent of the social contract and the principle of distributive justice by ensuring that the burden of military service is shared equally by all segments of the population, regardless of economic status. Lastly and. perhaps most importantly, as the cost-benefit analysis changes, that is, should the lives and well-being of the children of the privileged and the wealthy - the progeny of bankers, corporate executives, politicians etc. - be placed at risk, the frequency and number of wars will decrease significantly. By providing a fair distribution of sacrifice, with fewer unnecessary and immoral wars, and the eventual educational and employment opportunity for all, the Fairness Draft is a good first step toward creating a more perfect union and ensuring that the alleged struggle to end terrorism no longer remains a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight." |
But engaging in activity with no economic value other than lowering tax liabilities is probably not going to be a big net job creator when compared with investing in the economy.
Agreed.
My point was to counter the argument that increasing taxes just sends the high rollers to seek out loopholes. Fine, at least we have some chance of re-couping those tax dollars.
I think all income tax should be abolished. Instead, all tax should come from goods and services sold, just like the Euro VAT. (Yes, I know they still have income tax there too).
That way, the rich person will be paying more in tax, simply because what he/she buys is likely to cost more, and the quantity of what they buy would be greater. As for helping the poorest, rather than giving then a tax break, VAT on basic needs like food should be very low or even zero rated, and recovered with a higher rate for non essential goods and services.
Unfortunately, whatever system was put into use, people would find a way to cheat on it.
Would any consumption based tax like VAT that is significant enough to offset income tax cause a drop in American Spending? Whoud would the outcome be of reduced consumerism to american business?
cheers
My understanding is the federal government has constitutional authority to tax products and goods that are international or take place between states. I don't believe they have the authority to tax transactions within states. That power is given solely to each state. I don't think the federal government can impose a sales tax. They can impose a tax at the wholesale level on interstate commerce but only on that first level.
NC
Isn't decreasing social security payments really a tax?
It's the old people tax.
