If yuo made a six figure salery...
- Thread starter Waist Product
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Re: Re: Fair taxes (an oxymoron?)
I'd be perfectly happy to pay 14% and even happier to pay 10-12% if the size and scope of the govenment could be reduced a bit (and/or its efficiency increased).
Btw, this is roughly the size of the VAT (a sales tax in effect...and thus a flat tax, independent of income) in Britain, Canada and quite a few other countries. Imo, this more-or-less demonstrates that a flat tax rate (as opposed to everyone paying the same number of dollars) can work reasonably well in practise in a modern and economically diverse society. Whether or not it is better than our system is, of course, a different and a debatable question.
-Ww
Originally posted by pjorourke
the handy tax distribution tables shows total federal income taxes paid for 2001 of $892 billion by 130 million returns. Thus your estimate of $7 grand per family is about right. Total Adjusted Gross Income was $6.2 trillion so the flat % would be about 14%
the handy tax distribution tables shows total federal income taxes paid for 2001 of $892 billion by 130 million returns. Thus your estimate of $7 grand per family is about right. Total Adjusted Gross Income was $6.2 trillion so the flat % would be about 14%
Btw, this is roughly the size of the VAT (a sales tax in effect...and thus a flat tax, independent of income) in Britain, Canada and quite a few other countries. Imo, this more-or-less demonstrates that a flat tax rate (as opposed to everyone paying the same number of dollars) can work reasonably well in practise in a modern and economically diverse society. Whether or not it is better than our system is, of course, a different and a debatable question.
-Ww
Re: Re: Re: Fair taxes (an oxymoron?)
Ww, one thing you may want to keep in mind is that while Canada may have a VAT, it also still has an income tax. Also, the income tax rates in Canada is much higher than here in the states, thanks to big government programs like socialized medicine. Back in the old days when I used to do a lot of tax work for expatriates, the general consensus of Canadians working here in the US was that we have it "made" down here since we get deductions that they do not, like the mortgage interest deduction.
FYI, in many European countries that also have VAT such as Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. their personal income tax rates can go up as high as 50-70% of income.
Originally posted by Wwanderer
I'd be perfectly happy to pay 14% and even happier to pay 10-12% if the size and scope of the govenment could be reduced a bit (and/or its efficiency increased).
Btw, this is roughly the size of the VAT (a sales tax in effect...and thus a flat tax, independent of income) in Britain, Canada and quite a few other countries. Imo, this more-or-less demonstrates that a flat tax rate (as opposed to everyone paying the same number of dollars) can work reasonably well in practise in a modern and economically diverse society. Whether or not it is better than our system is, of course, a different and a debatable question.
-Ww
I'd be perfectly happy to pay 14% and even happier to pay 10-12% if the size and scope of the govenment could be reduced a bit (and/or its efficiency increased).
Btw, this is roughly the size of the VAT (a sales tax in effect...and thus a flat tax, independent of income) in Britain, Canada and quite a few other countries. Imo, this more-or-less demonstrates that a flat tax rate (as opposed to everyone paying the same number of dollars) can work reasonably well in practise in a modern and economically diverse society. Whether or not it is better than our system is, of course, a different and a debatable question.
-Ww
FYI, in many European countries that also have VAT such as Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. their personal income tax rates can go up as high as 50-70% of income.
Easier said than done
Unfortunately, there are two different Catch-22s involved in cutting the size of the Federal budget.
First of all, it could probablybe cut by at least PJ's 1/3 without giving up any of its activities or functions at all if the government's efficiency could be increased to anything like a sane level. The stories about DoD paying $200, or was it $2000, for hammers and such are only the absurd tip of the iceberg; anyone who has much contact with the government knows that nearly everything it does involves tremendous, if somewhat less insane/spectacular, inefficiency. However, this is much easier said than done. There seems to be some sort of unavoidable law of human organizations and enterprises that they become less efficient as they become larger and more complex. It really has nothing directly to do with government; rather it is a sort of general unsolved problem in management. The government is the most spectacularly inefficient organization because it is the largest and most complicated.
Second, it is quite likely that most people, probably even a large majority, would be happy to do away with a large fractions of the government's functions, and so money could be saved that way. However, there is not so much agreement on which functions should be sacrificed. The functions for which, say, PJ has the least use (defending snail darters and chasing T***, or whatever) are the very ones sizeable fractions of the electorate care about the most. While of course they might want to dispense with others that PJ, or I or jl or ..., think are vital. So it is very hard for the politicians to find anything to eliminate without mightily pissing off some significant part of the electorate....so, they don't.
-Ww
Originally posted by pjorourke
Right now, I think the Feds are running about 20% of GDP, State and local is probably another 10% combined. I bet we could cut 1/3 out of that without hitting any muscle -- just fat.
Right now, I think the Feds are running about 20% of GDP, State and local is probably another 10% combined. I bet we could cut 1/3 out of that without hitting any muscle -- just fat.
First of all, it could probablybe cut by at least PJ's 1/3 without giving up any of its activities or functions at all if the government's efficiency could be increased to anything like a sane level. The stories about DoD paying $200, or was it $2000, for hammers and such are only the absurd tip of the iceberg; anyone who has much contact with the government knows that nearly everything it does involves tremendous, if somewhat less insane/spectacular, inefficiency. However, this is much easier said than done. There seems to be some sort of unavoidable law of human organizations and enterprises that they become less efficient as they become larger and more complex. It really has nothing directly to do with government; rather it is a sort of general unsolved problem in management. The government is the most spectacularly inefficient organization because it is the largest and most complicated.
Second, it is quite likely that most people, probably even a large majority, would be happy to do away with a large fractions of the government's functions, and so money could be saved that way. However, there is not so much agreement on which functions should be sacrificed. The functions for which, say, PJ has the least use (defending snail darters and chasing T***, or whatever) are the very ones sizeable fractions of the electorate care about the most. While of course they might want to dispense with others that PJ, or I or jl or ..., think are vital. So it is very hard for the politicians to find anything to eliminate without mightily pissing off some significant part of the electorate....so, they don't.
-Ww
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair taxes (an oxymoron?)
Yes, yes I know. But my point was that even the poorest people in such countries, who pay little if any income taxes because of their low incomes, can still get along even though they have to pay the 15% or whatever VAT...that is the only tax they have to pay (at least in some places). So, I conclude that a flat 14% tax rate in the US would be survivable even for people making minimum wage etc. (Of course, the poor people in the countries you mention have government benefits, such as socialized medicine, that is not available here...so it is not a strictly accurate comparison.)
-Ww
Originally posted by jseah
Ww, one thing you may want to keep in mind is that while Canada may have a VAT, it also still has an income tax.
FYI, in many European countries that also have VAT such as Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. their personal income tax rates can go up as high as 50-70% of income.
Ww, one thing you may want to keep in mind is that while Canada may have a VAT, it also still has an income tax.
FYI, in many European countries that also have VAT such as Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. their personal income tax rates can go up as high as 50-70% of income.
-Ww
While we are on the subject of taxes, I think it is ridiculous how the government functions when it comes to implementing tax increases and cuts.
Under the current law, when our illustrious lawmakers propose tax cuts, they must come up with tax increases elsewhere to offset the revenue loss, thereby the tax cuts come at zero cost. However, in their infinite wisdom, cuts are typically valid for a predetermined period of time (i.e. the child tax credit increases are expected to be phased out by 2010), while the tax increases they come up with as an offset is permanent.
Under the current law, when our illustrious lawmakers propose tax cuts, they must come up with tax increases elsewhere to offset the revenue loss, thereby the tax cuts come at zero cost. However, in their infinite wisdom, cuts are typically valid for a predetermined period of time (i.e. the child tax credit increases are expected to be phased out by 2010), while the tax increases they come up with as an offset is permanent.
Originally posted by nychelsea
I wonder what PJ has against snail darters. They are such lovely, useful little creatures. Too bad they have become a symbol for out-of-control environmentalism, not to mention over regulation by our "friends" in Washington.
I wonder what PJ has against snail darters. They are such lovely, useful little creatures. Too bad they have become a symbol for out-of-control environmentalism, not to mention over regulation by our "friends" in Washington.
Re: Easier said than done
Well, I'd probably start with restaurant inspectors. Nobody cares about that.
I agree Ww that the current system is stacked in favor of spending and I think its partly because such a small percentage of the population directly pay the cost (15% of taxpayers pay 75% of all income taxes). If the tax bills were more broadly distributed, “none of the above” might have a larger constituency. This even distribution approach would work really well with my spending cap approach. Maybe with a cap that rachets down 1% of GDP every year till we hit the 20% total.
Originally posted by Wwanderer
Second, it is quite likely that most people, probably even a large majority, would be happy to do away with a large fractions of the government's functions, and so money could be saved that way. However, there is not so much agreement on which functions should be sacrificed. The functions for which, say, PJ has the least use (defending snail darters and chasing T***, or whatever) are the very ones sizeable fractions of the electorate care about the most. While of course they might want to dispense with others that PJ, or I or jl or ..., think are vital. So it is very hard for the politicians to find anything to eliminate without mightily pissing off some significant part of the electorate....so, they don't.
Second, it is quite likely that most people, probably even a large majority, would be happy to do away with a large fractions of the government's functions, and so money could be saved that way. However, there is not so much agreement on which functions should be sacrificed. The functions for which, say, PJ has the least use (defending snail darters and chasing T***, or whatever) are the very ones sizeable fractions of the electorate care about the most. While of course they might want to dispense with others that PJ, or I or jl or ..., think are vital. So it is very hard for the politicians to find anything to eliminate without mightily pissing off some significant part of the electorate....so, they don't.
I agree Ww that the current system is stacked in favor of spending and I think its partly because such a small percentage of the population directly pay the cost (15% of taxpayers pay 75% of all income taxes). If the tax bills were more broadly distributed, “none of the above” might have a larger constituency. This even distribution approach would work really well with my spending cap approach. Maybe with a cap that rachets down 1% of GDP every year till we hit the 20% total.
Re: Re: Easier said than done
Well, not really. I know quite a few people who check for the posted certifications issued to restaurants by local health boards before they will eat in them, and I have one (slightly nutty, to be sure) inlaw who is a fanatic on the subject. She knows the "grades" of all the restaurants she patronizes and tracks them and won't eat in a place with a grade below a certain level (higher than the legal requirements). Moreover, if she gets it into her head that the health board in a particular town is lax because a place with a good grade looks dirty to her, she won't eat in any restaurant in that town. (This is in the greater Boston area, so there are lots and lots of small municipalities in the area.) If this experiment was actually tried, I suspect that you would be astonished at the diversity of what people want the government to do.
All that said, I agree with your general point that a fair (or fairer) distribution of the tax burden perhaps with a cap on spending might well result in better and more rational government.
-Ww
Originally posted by pjorourke
Well, I'd probably start with restaurant inspectors. Nobody cares about that.
Well, I'd probably start with restaurant inspectors. Nobody cares about that.
All that said, I agree with your general point that a fair (or fairer) distribution of the tax burden perhaps with a cap on spending might well result in better and more rational government.
-Ww
Originally posted by pjorourke
Right now, I think the Feds are running about 20% of GDP, State and local is probably another 10% combined. I bet we could cut 1/3 out of that without hitting any muscle -- just fat.
Right now, I think the Feds are running about 20% of GDP, State and local is probably another 10% combined. I bet we could cut 1/3 out of that without hitting any muscle -- just fat.
(Obviously, the issue is what is fat and what is muscle. The flaw in your thinking is that the general public could come to any kind of reasonable consensus. In fact, I'd say that we're where we are precisely because the general public can't come to any consensus.)
Originally posted by justme
The flaw in your thinking is that the general public could come to any kind of reasonable consensus.
The flaw in your thinking is that the general public could come to any kind of reasonable consensus.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.