Twist that pretzel, now put it in the oven!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-im-not-trying-redistribute-wealth/473116

He's something!

[gjohnsoniv]

That's a confusing argument on his part...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

That's a confusing argument on his part...

That is our fault. He is so brilliant that we are incapable of understanding it.

[Dolomite_supafly]

If there was one thing I really wish they would do is go to a national sales tax. By all accounts there would be more money generated and less of a burden for those who pay taxes now. It would also encourage people to save money for their future. And finally the biggest reason why it will never happen, it lets the citizens of this country hold the government's purse strings. A national sales tax would get all those making money illegally like drug dealers or those not paying any taxes currently.

Having a national sales tax would also make sure the companies who don't pay their fair share are held accountable as well. There are dozen's of major companies who pay a tax rate that is much less than most Americans. Some US companies even funnel profits through tax exempt countries in order to prevent paying taxes. AT&T only pays 6.4% and GE only pays 7.4%, far cry from the 35% that most working Americans pay. I just want all players to play by the same rules.

If they did this they could do away with the majority of the IRS. And what do we do with all those IRS agents who no longer have a job? Let them leterally transfer over to the Border Patrol. There are enough IRS agents that we could have 16 agents per mile of border between the US, Canada and Mexico.

Dolomite

[Superman]

If you put more taxes on companies wouldnt they just pass the expense on to the consumer?

[E4 No More]

If you put more taxes on companies wouldnt they just pass the expense on to the consumer?

Yes.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't like tax and suppose most people don't. Perhaps choosing method of tax collection is like choosing how to skin a cat. No matter how the cat is skinned, the end result will be about the same.

One of the methods may be "most fair" and some certain rate may be "most fair" but depending on one's level of integrity one must be careful what he wishes for.

To remain revenue-neutral then if some people get a tax cut then others will get a tax hike. It will take a person of the highest integrity to KNOWINGLY vote for a "more fair" tax system which raises his own tax bill. So the odds are higher to get proposals that FOOL many people into thinking their tax bill will remain the same or lower, in order to support the change.

In general, money affects judgement. Yer typical person will think a tax reform which lowers his own tax is the most "fair". Just sayin, if millionaires and zillionaires are simply in love with a particular tax scheme, then watch out in supporting it, unless you are of the highest integrity. Because if the millionaires and zillionaires pay less under the new law, the odds are pretty good that you and I will pay more in order to be revenue neutral.

I'm not saying that any tax system is fair, and am not saying that the present system is fair. Just saying, be careful what you wish for unless you are of the highest integrity and will gladly pay more in the name of fairness.

[LagerHead]

There are huge differences between redistributing wealth and spreading the wealth around. For example, "redistributing" starts with an "r" and not an "s." Redistributing has more letters. Can't you guys see it?

[Dolomite_supafly]

So which would you rather have?

A choice in buying from a company with a higher price or having your overall taxes reduced. I would rather have the overall taxes reduced. You don't have a choice now and are forced to pay higher taxes because ceratin companies are not paying. If they did pay their fair share and increased their prices then we, as consumers, have a choice to not buy from them.

If AT&T and GE pay what it is supposed to then we, as American taxpayers, do not need to make up their shortfall with our higher taxes.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't like tax and suppose most people don't. Perhaps choosing method of tax collection is like choosing how to skin a cat. No matter how the cat is skinned, the end result will be about the same.

One of the methods may be "most fair" and some certain rate may be "most fair" but depending on one's level of integrity one must be careful what he wishes for.

To remain revenue-neutral then if some people get a tax cut then others will get a tax hike. It will take a person of the highest integrity to KNOWINGLY vote for a "more fair" tax system which raises his own tax bill. So the odds are higher to get proposals that FOOL many people into thinking their tax bill will remain the same or lower, in order to support the change.

In general, money affects judgement. Yer typical person will think a tax reform which lowers his own tax is the most "fair". Just sayin, if millionaires and zillionaires are simply in love with a particular tax scheme, then watch out in supporting it, unless you are of the highest integrity. Because if the millionaires and zillionaires pay less under the new law, the odds are pretty good that you and I will pay more in order to be revenue neutral.

I'm not saying that any tax system is fair, and am not saying that the present system is fair. Just saying, be careful what you wish for unless you are of the highest integrity and will gladly pay more in the name of fairness.

Hey Lester,

A minimal tax system and a minimal government is fair isn't it? Spreading the wealth implies someone who is making money(achieving) is forced to give money to the government to give to others who don't make money. Is that fair?

What is fair? The idea of a fair tax is that everyone is paying into a system before anything is used. It means that

a sales tax is the only way to achieve fairness since you pay tax only when you consume. Your income is yours,

all of it. You make the choice of paying tax when you buy something. There can be modifications made to accomodate

people with very low income and on what kind of purchases are taxed. Things are only taxed once, which means

cost of good go down. When the cost of goods drop, tax revenues would eventually increase due to the lower cost

of goods being more affordable by more people who will buy those goods. You wouldn't need an IRS, either.

The income tax is a scheme developed to punish achievement and it does that quite well. It has to have deductions

for all kind of things and it is involved in every aspect of anyone's or corporation's profits and income. In other words,

the income tax is carried along throughout and added to anything as many times as possible. Your cost of goods go

through the roof because of taxation, and other things, like all the regulations, but that is for another discussion.

When the game of "envy" is thrown in the mix, like Obama is doing by trying to get a few more dollars out of

millionaires, that is exactly what he is doing. It adds very little to the revenue and is only playing on a certain groups

attitude, which was placed there by the government just to accomplish that. Class envy should be avoided at all costs

because it achieves nothing and ends up costing all of us our ability to attain wealth on our own. I don't begrudge

anyone just because of his or her wealth. I do begrudge people who live off the backs of others, though. Warren

Buffet is not Steve Forbes, just like Jesse Jackson is not Martin L. King. One lives off the back of other and the other

one doesn't.

I imagine a welfare recipient would be happy to remain on the current system, but he or she would be better off

with a fair sales tax than with the current system. In fact we all would be better off.

Just one fact tells me we all would. It is the idea of voting for your benefits, if you're receiving welfare, for the person

who's running and promising you something he has no right to do, when you are not paying anything in to the system.

How honest is that? How fair is that? It's class warfare, an old communist inspired trick to keep everyone off balance.

I can't begrudge a millionaire, because all that does is keep me poor, or, at least it will make a dishonest crony out of

me, rich or poor. Welfare, being the poor version.

Taxes should be a lot lower and our government should be a lot smaller. If it keeps getting larger, we will eventually

be working completely for the government and have any freedom to do anything at all, except work and die.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So which would you rather have?

A choice in buying from a company with a higher price or having your overall taxes reduced. I would rather have the overall taxes reduced. You don't have a choice now and are forced to pay higher taxes because ceratin companies are not paying. If they did pay their fair share and increased their prices then we, as consumers, have a choice to not buy from them.

If AT&T and GE pay what it is supposed to then we, as American taxpayers, do not need to make up their shortfall with our higher taxes.

Dolomite

Actually, Dolomite, under a fair sales tax system AT&T or GE wouldn't concern us the same way. Corporations'

tax structure would change dramatically and wouldn't be based on income at all, either, except when they, like us

spend money, if then. I don't see a need to tax a corporation any different than anything else, do you? If you take

a chain off the individual, why not all?

[hkgonra]

The only fair method is that every adult citizen pays the same amount.

One flat annual fee. We all have the same rights and privilidges , we all get the same one vote and we should all pay the same fee.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The same amount , or the same rate? Big difference.

[gjohnsoniv]

The only problem with the same for everyone is what is fair? Not everyone could afford say four thousand, but on the other hand is 200 isn't enough to keep some programs that require the funding in place. That's my take at least.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'd say the least percentage that supports the least government actually needed. That would take some time

to calculate, too, but I think it would at least be fair, if based on consumption. It would allow for individual

achievement to flourish, instead of the opposite, and would allow for the most available freedoms based on

our Constitution. The IRS is nothing but overhead on our government and our economy. Not needed.

Herman Cain actually had it right as a transition from his 9,9,9 to the Fair Tax. I thought it was workable,

anyway.

[gjohnsoniv]

Unfortunately we all know that won't change anytime soon. Especially with the secretaries needing secretaries needing secretaries to get their coffee.

[mav]

Hey, I have a novel idea. How about lets seriously cut back on all of the nanny state cradle to grave bulls**t instead of raising taxes or creating new taxes, such as a national sales tax?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, I've always been resentful of paying any tax bill at all. I pay enough combined SS and income tax every year to buy a new car cash on the barrel every year. I don't pay enough tax to buy a mercedes, cadillac, or bmw cash on the barrel, but there are many new car models I could buy with my tax bill. So heck yeah I resent it.

I've examined most of the alternate tax proposals and there are good and bad points. Ain't smart enough to estimate the results. It would be difficult for the smartest economists to accurately guess at the practical good and bad things that would happen. It would basically be-- Do due diligence trying to craft one that APPEARS to do more good than harm, then switch over, and hope you are correct 5 or 10 or 20 years down the line after all the unintended consequences have kicked in.

There will always be unintended consequences and by definition we can't predict what they will be. Otherwise the consequences would have been intentional. It will take a long time to discover all of the unintended effects, because you might see a marvelous improvement for a few years before it goes to heck in a handbasket even worse than if nothing had changed. Anybody who confidently guarantees they know how to fix it, Obama, Ryan, Forbes, Boortz-- Selling a bill of goods. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but nobody knows enough to confidently guarantee a fix. People make fun of computer weather models predicting the climate 10 years ahead, but that would be EASY compared to calculating the true economic effect of a significant overhaul of the tax system.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. Just trying to be realistic on the odds of doing more good than harm.

It would be fabulous to balance the budget by cutting spending, and after that continue to cut spending so that people can have a tax cut. Ain't gonna happen. Wish it would, but it ain't gonna happen. Probably can't be fixed until we turn into zimbabwe and crash out entirely.

Deficit is $1.5 trillion a year or therabouts. A trillion here, a trillion there, who's counting? Congress fights over cutting a million here and there. Even with a 100 percent repbulican president, senate and house they couldn't muster the will to cut $1.5 trillion. I wish it would happen but it ain't gonna happen.

Seeing as how there will most likely be deficits from here to eternity, as much as I hate to say it, we need across the board tax hikes. Not just on the rich folks. You and me and menial workers everywhere.

But anyway, even if they don't raise taxes to try to meet this insane deficit, any tax change has gotta be at least revenue neutral or we might as well put a gun to our heads. Cut tax revenue and run even a HIGHER deficit? That is crazy talk.

So when they make a revenue neutral tax overhaul that is more "fair" then some people will pay less tax and some people will pay more tax. When Reagan cut taxes, I was one of the ones who got to pay more tax to help balance things out so I know first hand it can happen. Just saying, look carefully at any tax reform. If your tax bill goes up in the name of fairness and you approve of the same, then it will prove that you are a very responsible citizen with lots of personal integrity.

[gjohnsoniv]

I wonder if it would be possible to use a section of the U.S. as a test bed for X number of years? Might give a better idea of what would happen.

[daddyo]

"I'm not trying to redistribute wealth"

He's peeing on our heads and telling us that it's raining.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

The Nation wide sales tax works because its not how much companys pay and its not how much we pay, Its about taking away the ability of the Gov to bribe the people, with tax revenue that came from the people. It promotes work ethic and the only thing that is going to help this country is for the people who are a burden on the tax payers are forced off their butts. We are so twisted as a country Its not possible to recover without fallout. Its the price some will have to pay for the mistakes of previous generations. (You know the ones who let the gov create social security and gain the first foothold into Americas moral fiber, "They have more so they should have to help me".

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wonder if it would be possible to use a section of the U.S. as a test bed for X number of years? Might give a better idea of what would happen.

Like Reagan said about that, "if you don't like the way one state does things, you can always move to another".

Paraphrased, but accurate. Tennessee already has a sales tax system that works quite well. I think Kentucky

uses income and sales tax. I don't know how well that one works, but I think the Kentuckians are over taxed for

what their state government provides, or needs to provide.

The states already are providing information for that. It wouldn't be a stretch for the federal government to

extrapolate that information and utilize it. The trouble with taxation is that politicians are empowered by it. That

needs to be dealt with by who we send to public office.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The Nation wide sales tax works because its not how much companys pay and its not how much we pay, Its about taking away the ability of the Gov to bribe the people, with tax revenue that came from the people. It promotes work ethic and the only thing that is going to help this country is for the people who are a burden on the tax payers are forced off their butts. We are so twisted as a country Its not possible to recover without fallout. Its the price some will have to pay for the mistakes of previous generations. (You know the ones who let the gov create social security and gain the first foothold into Americas moral fiber, "They have more so they should have to help me".

So true!

[Grand Torino]

The biggest gripe I have about taxes is only about 50% pay them. Some of the richest companys/individuals pay none as well as all the welfare heiffers while the folks in the middle get to tow the line. A flat tax would fix it......anyone that goes to the store to buy something would have to pay something.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

.

The biggest gripe I have about taxes is only about 50% pay them. Some of the richest companys/individuals pay none as well as all the welfare heiffers while the folks in the middle get to tow the line. A flat tax would fix it......anyone that goes to the store to buy something would have to pay something.

Yep, so immigration(Legal Immigration) wouldn't be as much of an issue. Everyone would pay you couldn't cheat