On taxes and the debt limit - could I be a *GASP* "democrat"????

[tangent4ronpaul]

So they are talking about getting rid of tax cuts for private jets, and such. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but seriously people - I've seen the tax code. It's the size of a couple of metropolitan area phone books and 99.9% of it is tax loopholes for corporations and special interests. I remember hearing one corp - a oil or car company paid ZERO taxes this year. How about we get rid of the entire thing and replace it with something in the 5-10 page range that someone with a 60 IQ could understand. Something really simple.

Keep the individual deduction - a flat figure. That takes care of the poor.
Keep deductions for Political contributions and non-profits.
Get rid of the rest - or just about everything else. Individual or corporation - we all pay the same percent. No more sliding scales.

We could lay off most of the IRS, save billions on accountants and a forest or two worth of paper every year.

As to raising the debt ceiling - HELL NO!

Discussion?

-t

[teacherone]

What do you mean corporations don't pay taxes?

Corporations are forced to collect sales taxes to send to the government - this just raises prices on the consumer.

Every employee working for a corporation pays income and payroll taxes - this just raises prices on the consumer.

Every corporation had to purchase a corporate charter, pay licensing fees, adhere to complex government regulations - this just raises prices on the consumer.

An extra corporate tax? You guessed it -- will raise prices on the consumer.

[tangent4ronpaul]

An extra corporate tax? You guessed it -- will raise prices on the consumer.

Or reduce corporate profits (executive salaries/bonuses - which have become obscene, and reduce dividends to stock holders).

They still have to remain competitive to stay in business.

And I was referring to corporate taxes - not all that hidden shit that isn't in the tax code.

Think of the money Walmart could save if they didn't have to employ an ARMY of accountants!

Remember that tax loopholes are a subsidy - one that was gained via lobbyists. You know what you get with subsidies...

-t

[teacherone]

How do you define "obscene profits". At what point does a salary become "obscene."

Why would you want to reduce dividends to stock holders?

If the corporate tax rate were raised across the board, prices would adjust more or less across the board (as in all things economic this is not provable).

I agree that if we are to have a tax code it should be dramatically simplified - 2 or 3 brackets NO deductions, NO loopholes.

[tangent4ronpaul]

well there was an article in Fortune a few years ago about the growing gap in CEO salary and that of the average employee. used to be 5:1 - 10:1, and is now 50:1 and then there are multi-million dollar bonuses.

Want to reduce dividends - generally do not.

prices - depends on the company... pharma and insurance companies make HUGE profits and could easily absorb it, smaller companies would probably have to raise prices. At the same time, individual income taxes could probably go down. Wouldn't you rather pay that premium by choice by where you do business?

and lets get rid of the brackets too!

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

WOW! - was I off on the CEO compensation gap - it's more like 1,000:1

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/07/how-many-workers-can-you-hire-for-the-price-of-one-ceo/

[brandon]

Who cares what the CEO makes? It's none of our business, though I say good for them.


I think the company you're thinking of is GE. There were tons of anti-GE hit pieces floating around the liberal web sites about this. Turns out most just simply weren't true. For one thing, GE had big losses in 2009 so they carry them forward to write off profits in 2010.

[spladle]

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap35sec3.asp

[VBRonPaulFan]

just wanted to point out that the reason you're probably seeing an increasing gap between CEO and average worker pay is probably because of the destruction of the value of the dollar.

and your solution would never fly for most democrats, because it would mean that low income people would actually pay into the system. as it is, on average, the bottom 50% earners in the country do not pay into the system or get a refund when it is all said and done and the tax return is filed. (they pay withholding, but end up getting at least all of it back on their tax return).

[specsaregood]

How about we get rid of the entire thing and replace it with something in the 5-10 page range that someone with a 60 IQ could understand. Something really simple.

Keep the individual deduction - a flat figure. That takes care of the poor.
Keep deductions for Political contributions and non-profits.
Get rid of the rest - or just about everything else. Individual or corporation - we all pay the same percent. No more sliding scales.

We could lay off most of the IRS, save billions on accountants and a forest or two worth of paper every year.


So you want to increase unemployment?

[Carehn]

The tax code is not fair. but getting rid of tax brakes is a nice, non threatening way to say raising taxes. No the tax code is not fair, its a fascist twisted system but i would rather the large corps keep the money because the more the government takes out of the economy the less their will be. If they want to get rid of "tax brakes" what they could do is stop subsidizing things like corn and such. it would force the market to return to normal in some areas and save money. They can also stop buying so much from all these corps.

Ending tax brakes, or raising taxes will not fix the root of the problem and encourage congress to spend even more and start arguing to end the marriage or kid tax loop holes.

[LibertyEagle]

I've always thought that a very low flat tax with absolutely no deductions whatsoever was the best, as long as we were going to have an income tax.

[JamesButabi]

I think you are trying to attack negative effects (completely understandable with our unsustainability)and just need to focus more on the root causes. Things like this really do not occur in large scales in a free market with a sound currency.

[affa]

the idea that increased corporate tax will always be passed on to the consumer is a bit smoke and mirrors. it's such a pat way to argue that corporations should be exempt from all taxation, fines, fees, and other possible monetary charges.

while to some degree it's true -- it's certainly one way to absorb the financial blow -- it's not the only way (decreased profits, for example, is another, decreased dividends, decreased raises). But this idea that it would always be passed along -- as if the corporation lives in a vacuum where raising it's prices is always an option, and in turn wouldn't hurt it's sales more than simply paying the tax would hurt it's bottom line, is a bit simplistic.

note that i'm not arguing for or against, i just hate that meme since it seems to effectively give absolute immunity to corporations against any sort of gov't imposed fee whatsoever -- be it minimum wage laws, environmental damage fines, what have you.