OT - Jobs Lost

You have interesting economists. The "full employment" figure is 5%, or

4.8%, in the average estimate. When you drop below that, the economy is in a bubble.

But aside from that, I don't know how old this message is, Gary, but I forget the context. And I refuse to do any arithmetic today.

?

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress
Loading thread data ...

Consumer taxes are wildly regressive. That's something the Europeans wrestle with all the time, and for which they've built various compensating mechanisms.

But they never really get rid of it. A lot of European policy makers would love to get rid of the whole VAT business but their economies are hooked on it. It's an easy tax to hide (it doesn't appear as a line item on your retail receipts, for example) and it pulls in huge amounts of revenue.

Oh, I think you'll find some Republicans who would vote for it.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:30:53 GMT, patlandy brought forth from the murky depths:

It's kinda high, don't you think? Remember when the flat tax was brought up by Presidential candidate Steve Forbes suggesting one? It was 17%. Here are charts for the effect it would have (raping the poor)

formatting link

- Interpreted Interpolations Done Dirt Cheap. -----------

formatting link
Website Application Programming

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Hmm. I thought Gary was in favor of a true flat tax, where every individual and every corporation paid the same prercentage, no deductions, no exemptions, no offshore accounts, no bahamian registry....

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

In 40 years in the real estate industry, the last 20 providing software for market analysis I have found that not to be true. You build to the market. A new guy comming in with the intent of undercutting everyone else on price will not last very long.

Acording to FDIC statistics, the AVERAGE credit card rate for all US card holders is 18.9%. The current charge off rate is 4.5%. Like I said, dropping Visa's cost by half a point will have very little effect on the debtor.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

Thinking a little further, a flat rate might work if there were a personal deduction high enough to provide an "average" standard of living. Maybe set at the median (mid point) of the range of incomes. Say $30,000. The basis being that anything more than what is needed for a basic "average" existence is "discretionary" and available to be taxed.

No, that would mean that 50% of the population would pay no tax at all and the top 1% would, as Mr. Will says, pay about 39.6%. The Republicans surly wouldn't go for that. ;-)

As Mr. Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." The same goes for the progressive income tax.

Another of Winston's quotes that is really appropriate for this group: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." :-)

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

Ha ha. They sure *would* be surly! Especially if the plan involved corporations chipping in their 39.6 as well!

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

No sure what HR25 is, but does anyone remember the "Flat Tax" of 13% on earned income - personal or corporate, across the board, no exemptions? What ever happened (besides wars) to that idea?

Regards,

Marv

patlandy wrote:

Reply to
Marv Soloff

You can make any tax program work on paper if you adjust the numbers to fit. But one that doesn't screw up market incentives, and that still helps people to realize their goals in the right places, is another matter.

The easiest thing in the world to screw up is a tax program.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

It died a merciful death from terminal lunacy.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

They buried that in a heartbeat when they realized that it meant that corporations would actually have to pay taxes.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Corporations do not pay taxes........ They pass along the tax burden to the consumers of their products in the form of higher prices.... The taxes, outrageous product liabilty Insurance, workman's comp insurance, and competition from offshore competitors who don't pay these formidable costs are the reason the corporations move offshore....... Institute a "Loser Pays" form of legal reform, and do away with corporate income taxes and you'll have to hide from the people offering you jobs....... Pat Landy

Reply to
patlandy

What burden? How much did Cisco pay last year...?

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

If they didn't have a profit..... they didn't have a tax liability...... Income is not generated in a vacuum, they have substancial costs not the least of which happens to be payroll..... you know what you have when you create jobs......... Pat Landy

Reply to
patlandy

Frontline just did a nice piece on this called "Tax me if you can" ( it's available on their website in streaming video @

formatting link
) The tax shelter was called lease in, lease out, worth taking a look at!

William....

Reply to
William

However much it was, the money came from their customers, not investors.

Al Moore

Reply to
Alan Moore

I thought the *true* customers were the investors.

The question remains, if a corporation does business in the US, should it be required to pay taxes? Right now the answer is basically 'no' because prevailing thought is that corporations should be allowed to use the infrastructure here without cost. They should be allowed a free ride on this.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Oh, boy, that's a good one. Thanks, William.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Actually, corporations are tax collectors. They simply pass along any taxes charged them in the form of higher prices to the consumer. So they're acting as indirect tax collectors for the government while it is the consumer who actually pays the bill in everything he buys, even though it may not be apparent to him that's the case.

Put another way, all taxes ultimately are consumption taxes. That's why a flat sales tax is a better system. Everyone pays it, and everyone immediately sees it on their sales receipts. Nothing is hidden. Every time you spend money, you know what chunk of it is being taken by the government.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

Except corporations don't. Sales taxes are incredibly regressive. As discussed here, it's a bad idea to be encouraging wealth to be even *more* tightly centralized in the US right now.

Heck, I would be spending more and improving the state of the economy right now if I didn't have to pay taxes. But I do.

So the argument that the general economic situation is improved by exempting GE from paying for their share of the government services they use, falls on somewhat, um, skeptical ears.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.