I ran across this guys blog when I was Googling for some estate planning information. He takes a look at some of the major players taxation policies. Might be of some interest to people.
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
I ran across this guys blog when I was Googling for some estate planning information. He takes a look at some of the major players taxation policies. Might be of some interest to people.
Good read it at least it gives us an ideal on where they stand on taxation.
GOD BLESS
__________________ War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow. - Martin Luther King Jr. Seek peace, and pursue it. - Psalms 34:14 Be kind to unkind people - they need it the most - by Ashleigh Brilliant.
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,088
I used to like the simplicity of a national sales tax, but got a quick education from this forum, and I realize that it would never work, and isn't desirable.
My guess is that Huckabee would be wasting his time on this if he got elected and tried to get it through.
I used to like the simplicity of a national sales tax, but got a quick education from this forum, and I realize that it would never work, and isn't desirable.
My guess is that Huckabee would be wasting his time on this if he got elected and tried to get it through.
Do you have a link to a previous discussion on the topic?
I used to like the simplicity of a national sales tax, but got a quick education from this forum, and I realize that it would never work, and isn't desirable.
My guess is that Huckabee would be wasting his time on this if he got elected and tried to get it through.
I think it would be hard to get any serious tax reform through. Too many influential people make a fat living off our ridiculously complicated system.
Plus, I think the IRS (assuming it oversaw some kind of simplified tax system) would see an increase in compliance and quite possibly higher annual tax revenue.
"The tax code now exceeds a staggering 60,000 pages, prompting Americans to waste 6.2 billion hours just completing their returns every year. Deciphering it costs the country $203.4 billion a year, according to the Tax Foundation. Its complexities generate additional job-killing distortions throughout our economy."
"The answer, quite simply, is the flat tax. It has a single, low rate that treats all Americans fairly and has no deductions or special-interest loopholes. The flat tax is clear, honest and easily understood, and passing a flat tax would liberate taxpayers and jump-start the economy."
I'll agree that the current code is ridiculously complex. We should eliminate all "intentional" special deals, including all individual deductible expenses.
However, there is no reason to go to a single tax rate. If there are 60,000 pages of tax code, then 59,999 pages are used to determine your taxable income, and 1 page has the table of graduated rates that we apply to that income. I would keep the 1 page and get rid of as many of the 59,999 as possible.
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by starter82
Just looking at it on the surface, I think Paul's ideas are the soundest.
Although there could be some benefit to more closely linking use of government services to funding said services, "fee" is just another word for "tax"...
President Paul: That'll be $12,000 please.
HFWR: Grumble, grumble...
President Paul: But it's a fee, not a tax.
HFWR: Oh, in that case...
__________________ Have Funds, Will Retire "...but do feel free to assert your duly noted opinion on this subject again without benefit of reference or provision of additional information..."
Although there could be some benefit to more closely linking use of government services to funding said services, "fee" is just another word for "tax"...
President Paul: That'll be $12,000 please.
HFWR: Grumble, grumble...
President Paul: But it's a fee, not a tax.
HFWR: Oh, in that case...
I get that I'd still pay a lot, potentially more. I think the benefit just what you said, that what we pay would be more closely linked to what we use. Right now, people with children pay less. Why? They use more services. Mortgage interest deduction? Anyone wanna buy a bigger house, let the government help you pay for it!
I think we should more greatly bear responsibility for decisions we make.
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 5,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl
I used to like the simplicity of a national sales tax, but got a quick education from this forum, and I realize that it would never work, and isn't desirable.
My guess is that Huckabee would be wasting his time on this if he got elected and tried to get it through.
I mostly agree, but at least Huckabee is talking up simplicity. Maybe he would really push for some compromises that would lead to some real simplification.
Here's one crazy, stepping-stone idea I thought of recently:
OK, I've mentioned eliminating corporate taxation before, because the consumer just pays it anyhow in the price of the goods sold, plus they pay the cost of compliance and avoidance. That would simplify the tax code tremendously. But, we would need to replace that tax revenue. So, how about a tax on corporate sales? Shouldn't be too hard to figure what the rate would need to be to capture as much revenue as the current corporate income tax does. Let's say it's 5% of sales (note1). A company has $1M in sales, they owe $50,000 in tax. Period. No deductions, no calculation of profits/loss, etc.
That would 'test the waters', and maybe warm people to the idea of point-of-sale type sales tax to replace income tax.
(note1) - Ballpark number, if you guesstimate that corporations on average were making 15% profits on sales, a 5% sales tax would be the equivalent of 33% income tax. Could phase it in over 5 years to give companies time to adjust pricing if needed.
So, how about a tax on corporate sales? Shouldn't be too hard to figure what the rate would need to be to capture as much revenue as the current corporate income tax does. Let's say it's 5% of sales (note1). A company has $1M in sales, they owe $50,000 in tax. Period. No deductions, no calculation of profits/loss, etc.
The problem with this approach is that profit margins are vastly different in different industries.
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 5,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51
The problem with this approach is that profit margins are vastly different in different industries.
True, but would it really be a big deal? Maybe, I don't know.
Let's see - high tech companies might be riding at 30% profit margin or so for a while. So 5% of sales would be lower than their corporate income taxes most likely (depending on what kind of clever accountants and write offs they have).
What's at the other end of the spectrum? I've always heard that grocery stores have low profit %, but they turn over so much inventory that it adds up. So, a 5% increase in food prices might be bad.
But, it is essentially the same deal with the NST, just at the point-of-sale versus the corporation. I suppose it could be dealt with the same way - raise the standard deduction to offset 5% on essentials?
I guess that's why I think this might be a good idea - it's a way to provide a test bed w/o converting whole hog?
What's at the other end of the spectrum? I've always heard that grocery stores have low profit %, but they turn over so much inventory that it adds up. So, a 5% increase in food prices might be bad.
I often wonder how much food is marked up. One store has a certain product for $4 something. I think it's $4.4X, but I'm not sure. Another store sells the same thing for, no joke, $8. These are everyday prices. The second store will occasionally put the item on sale for $7 (6.99). How much profit is in food?
I'd support higher food prices if the clerks, etc. get paid more. I don't support greater profits.
"Food retailers overcame sharp increases in energy, health care and other costs to post a median after-tax net profit of 1.91% in fiscal year 2006-2007, up from 1.46% the previous year, according to Food Marketing Institutes Annual Financial Review 2006-2007, released yesterday."
__________________ Numbers is hard...
90% of building a retirement nest egg is just showing up. The other 10% is half the battle.
"Food retailers overcame sharp increases in energy, health care and other costs to post a median after-tax net profit of 1.91% in fiscal year 2006-2007, up from 1.46% the previous year, according to Food Marketing Institutes Annual Financial Review 2006-2007, released yesterday."
Then why the price difference that I mentioned? I doubt they're spending the money on their storefront labor. Actually, I know they aren't, at least not by wage, perhaps by number of employees.
Loss leader, better (lower cost) sourcing, mis-pricing, who knows? You can't judge the overall pricing/profit strategy of a retailer or industry by looking at one product out of thousands.
__________________ Numbers is hard...
90% of building a retirement nest egg is just showing up. The other 10% is half the battle.
However, there is no reason to go to a single tax rate. If there are 60,000 pages of tax code, then 59,999 pages are used to determine your taxable income, and 1 page has the table of graduated rates that we apply to that income. I would keep the 1 page and get rid of as many of the 59,999 as possible.
I can get behind this solution as well. My main issue with the tax code is it's vast unnecessary complication.
Personal Income Tax form - USA EAZY
Name here
SSN here
Line 1: Total income
Line 2: Your tax rate % (see table below)
Line 3: Amount owed
Quote:
Linear Mode
