McCain or Obama?

[Cairan]

Yeah, Fair Tax combined with a "detaxed" protected income is the way to go. The way progressive taxes work, they actually encourage people even more to officially earn less (tax evasion anyone?) or on the "dark" job market because everyone tries to be in the lowest possible tax bracket.

Consumption taxes is the way to go in my opinion. Between handing out 60% of my income to the government (45% in various income taxes and 13% of federal and provincial sales taxes) and seeing how many people just try to evade the income tax part of it, and a plain, honest, smack-in-your-face 45% sales tax, I would prefer the latter. I'm probably the only one to think so...

 

[Star explorer]

maccian obamas to inexperianced.



thought over and still wan't maccain

 

[Cobalt]

Yeah, Fair Tax combined with a "detaxed" protected income is the way to go. The way progressive taxes work, they actually encourage people even more to officially earn less (tax evasion anyone?) or on the "dark" job market because everyone tries to be in the lowest possible tax bracket.

Consumption taxes is the way to go in my opinion. Between handing out 60% of my income to the government (45% in various income taxes and 13% of federal and provincial sales taxes) and seeing how many people just try to evade the income tax part of it, and a plain, honest, smack-in-your-face 45% sales tax, I would prefer the latter. I'm probably the only one to think so...

The FairTax rate as proposed in the House sets the rate at 23% (just search for "percent" twice, it'll come up.)

This would keep the prices of goods at roughly the same place (A potential small swing either way) and allows the government to keep the same revenue it already had. It also allows the taxing of people who had previously avoided income taxes (drug deals, what have you) since at some point, everyone goes to buy something.

The prebate negates the argument that it helps only the rich by refunding the sales tax on necessities of life items, meaning the lower income brackets get to keep and use more of their income for whatever they deem necessary.

And the tax is only paid on new consumer goods. The purchase of used cars, homes, games, movies, clothes, anything isn't taxed.

So, while I don't talk politics a lot, I'll gladly talk up the FairTax.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is especially funny to see the comparison of the Laffer Curve with other countries (NeoLaffer curve) - Strange that there is no relation visible at all, isn't it?

Real economics are not looking into the crystal orb, and the simplest rule is: Somebody has to pay it. The US government takes over Fanny Mae and Freddy..... - which will cost 100 billion USD to fix. Guess who will be the somebody to pay the damage caused....

 

[GregBurch]

Ahh, the wonderful world of tax policy ... Nothing is so likely to evoke an argument consisting entirely of missed shots and ricochets. The comment made above about the fact that relatively wealthy people pay most of the tax in the US is one that is not seen very often. To hear the discussion on all sides in the "debate" one would think that the operation of the US government was financed entirely by people who make average incomes. Although I'm NOT serious about it, I somethimes propose toungue in cheek that only rich people should pay taxes, just so they don't have to listen to all the yelling and screaming about the impact of taxes on people who, in absolute terms, don't contribute that much to the funding of the US government's operations.

All of which leads to one of the primary elements of the constitution I've been working on for many years. It's based on one of the very few ideas that I think the US Founders missed -- mainly because they wrote the US Constitution at a time when modern economic activity was in its earliest infancy.

One of the fundamental provisions of the constitution I'm drafting is that "tax policy" is prohibited. By this, I mean that the legislature is forbidden to enact legislation that favors some program or policy by means of providing tax incentives or tax breaks connected with that activity. If the legislature wants to subsidize some activity, they must do so by expenditure, not by decreasing revenue and tax levy.

"Tax policy" in terms of providing tax incentives and tax breaks to subsidize favored social policy is one of the most invisible, but most inimical elements of modern government, because it provides a mask behind which legislators can hide their spending. Providing tax breaks based on favored activity is one of the most widespread activities of all modern (little-R) republican legislatures. Such laws are expenditure, just as clearly as if checks were being written by the government, but it is not subject to the same scrutiny or institutional checks and balances that open, straight-forward expenditure is.

Whenever I propose this idea, I am immediately hit with the response that many elements of contemporary American tax policy are very beneficial, most notably the credit that taxpayers get for home mortgage payments. I respond to this by saying that if this policy is so beneficial, then the legislators and voters should be willing to support real expenditure to subsidize it, since the allowance of tax credits to support individual home ownership has precisely the same effect as a straight-forward expenditure to subsidize it. I've never been able to get anyone to deny the truth of that, but most people still think I'm crazy for proposing that raising revenue and spending it should be two, unconnected functions of government.

Go figure.

 

[Urwumpe]

Isn't any government actually just a money distribution machine, in modern economics?

But I like your idea, would be great having such a concept also in Germany.

 

[GregBurch]

But I like your idea, would be great having such a concept also in Germany.

I joke about two other provisions that will be in this constitution:

1. No dumb ugly people. If you're dumb, you have to be good-looking. If you're ugly, you have to be smart.

2. No driving slow in the fast lane.

 

[cjp]

2. No driving slow in the fast lane.

Oh, come on! Annoying the Germans by driving 80 km/h on the left lane of their autobahn with a caravan can be so much fun! :lol:

Now back to your tax proposal: I don't really understand it. Maybe you can give an example?

 

[Urwumpe]

2. No driving slow in the fast lane.

That's already inside the German constitution as part of the article 102.

Article 102.
Capital punishment is abolished.

cjp: Remember my words: Who fails the exam for the driving license in the Netherlands the third time, gets a yellow license plate!

 

[GregBurch]

Oh, come on! Annoying the Germans by driving 80 km/h on the left lane of their autobahn with a caravan can be so much fun! :lol:

This is when I imagine mounting one of these on the hood of my Vette:

Now back to your tax proposal: I don't really understand it. Maybe you can give an example?

To use the example cited above, one of the largest tax subsidies in the US is the credit homeowners get to deduct mortgage interest payments from their taxable income. When you fill out your income tax return in the US, you list how much you spend on mortgage interest on your home loan, and deduct it from the income upon which your tax is computed, thus decreasing the tax you pay (and thus tax revenue sent to the federal government).

This has the effect of substantially decreasing the federal government's tax revenues in exactly the same way as if the government had collected the money in the first place, and then sent you a check to subsidize your home loan.

Advocates of this kind of tax policy say that it's more efficient -- why send the money to the government's treasury and then turn right around and send it back to the taxpayer? Why not let the taxpayer keep the money in the first place?

The answer is that the negative effect of these kinds of subsidies outweighs the single positive of transactional efficiency. If subsidizing home ownership through deduction of mortgage interest was the only example of tax subsidy, then this would be OK. But it's not. The US tax code is a viper's nest of complexity created by gazzillions of special interest tax subsidies. If the average American voter REALLY knew what was in the tax code, they'd rise up and eat their Congressmen's livers with a nice Chianti and some fava beans. The tax code is a catalog of perfidy beyond belief.

 

[Urwumpe]

The tax code is a catalog of perfidy beyond belief.

Study the German tax laws, and you will very likely decide that the situation in the USA is not too bad after all.

Alone the discussion if and how much a computer for work at home can account for tax reductions, shows well that it is not too simple. :dry:

 

[cjp]

Ah, so it is about complexity of the tax system, not about who gets the money in the end?

Like Urwumpe said: compared to some other countries, the situation in the US isn't so bad. But, if you think you found a way to improve it even further, there's nothing wrong with that.

PS. I didn't vote in this poll. Are non-US citizens supposed to join this poll?

 

[Mission_CDR]

How do you think do the USA work? Let a republican pray to god and suddenly, money arrives? Face the facts.

McCain will lower taxes and at the same time lower government spending. He will make sure that no one wastes our tax dallars on things that aren't nessecary. The economy doen't work by having extremly high taxes that don't allow any growth in the economy, and it is not fair too tax people with higher income a higher percent of their income. (People with a very low income should get tax cuts though) And a lot of the people the money taken from the "rich" goes to don't need it, a lot do though and I am fine with having some of my money go towards helping them. A lot of the people I have seen on wellfare have been perfectly able to work but didnt want to, I know some on wellfare because she is depressed. And I have seen people missing legs or arms living a perfectly normal life. So if we could fix that problem then there would be no need to raise taxes for "rich people" Does anyone agree with me?

 

[Nickmick95]

Did you forget about the Iraq war?

 

[John_L]

Obama wants to cut funding to NASA. Nuff said?

 

[Linguofreak]

The prebate negates the argument that it helps only the rich by refunding the sales tax on necessities of life items, meaning the lower income brackets get to keep and use more of their income for whatever they deem necessary.

It still helps the rich much more than it helps anybody else. The problem is not with whether you're taxing necessities of life (everyone needs to eat), it's the fact that the rich spend much more money, and much more of a percentage of their income, than anybody else on investments that fall into what, under that law, is "intangible property" and thus exempt from taxation.

Sure, by not taxing "neccesities of life" you help the poor keep food on the table, but by not taxing "intangible property" you let the rich get away practically scot free. Under practically *any* tax system you can arrange for a tax rebate or welfare program so that the poor can keep food on the table, but this so called "fair tax" is horribly regressive whether or not it keeps the poor fed.

 

[Mission_CDR]

I am sorry I did forget about that, another thing that Mccain will do is encourage off shore drilling wihch will significantly bring down the cost of gas which fuels our economy, the cheaper it is the less it cost to ship goods that companies make and in turn major companies make more money and the economy grows. Having a stronger economy would help more than putting ridicuously high taxes on a weak economy. I am no expert on economics but I think that having fewer but stronger dallars is better than having a lot of weak dollars.

Obama says a lot of things that seem like empty promises to me, he has no respect for the country that he lives in, http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=obama+disrespecting+the+flag&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=obama+disres# http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=obama+not+wearing+flag+pin&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=obama+not+w#, and he and his VP have done less combined than even Sarah Palin has done seems to me that he does not have the experience needed to be our president.

 

[Nickmick95]

#1: Offshore drilling is a WASTE. Because the oil will never reach us until 5 years from now, and oil is a NON-renewable resource! We need to invest in wind, solar, and bio-fuels for energy.

#2: McCain has said that the ECONOMY wasn't his strong suit. How can you expect a president who doesn't have any experience in the Economy field. If you think that just because Sarah Palin has run a Town of 7,000 people and has ran a State of 600,000 people, which is like being the Mayor of Memphis, and her husband was a part of a group who wanted to seperate from the U.S., then you'd better reconsider who you'd vote for.

 

[Urwumpe]

I am sorry I did forget about that, another thing that Mccain will do is encourage off shore drilling wihch will significantly bring down the cost of gas which fuels our economy, the cheaper it is the less it cost to ship goods that companies make and in turn major companies make more money and the economy grows.

Actually, that is wishful thinking. As far as I am informed, the amount of oil they are talking about would not even last for three years - after it took some years to access the oil. And let me predict you, where the oil will go: Hoping for a lower oil price by this project, people will keep their over-sized cars, the ships will not become more economic and the industry rely on oil even longer, instead of developing alternatives. Do you think the Tesla roadster got created only by sheer boredom?

The subprime crisis will the tax payer already cost 100 billion USD only for saving Fannie&Freddy - almost the same money as project constellation. And it is not the only damage.

The oil in the protected regions is pretty much the family jewels of the USA. Once you have used it, it is gone. And currently is not the best moment to use the oil for lowering prices - it would be better when the USA have finally lowered their demand and found alternatives to the oil. McCains plan is literally about burning money to keep you warm for a evening.

 

[GregBurch]

Ah, so it is about complexity of the tax system, not about who gets the money in the end?

Like Urwumpe said: compared to some other countries, the situation in the US isn't so bad. But, if you think you found a way to improve it even further, there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not just complexity -- it's that tax subsidies HIDE real expenditures. It's a way for the legislature to spend money without paying the immediate political cost, so to them, it feels like "free money."

It still helps the rich much more than it helps anybody else. The problem is not with whether you're taxing necessities of life (everyone needs to eat), it's the fact that the rich spend much more money, and much more of a percentage of their income, than anybody else on investments that fall into what, under that law, is "intangible property" and thus exempt from taxation.

Sure, by not taxing "neccesities of life" you help the poor keep food on the table, but by not taxing "intangible property" you let the rich get away practically scot free. Under practically *any* tax system you can arrange for a tax rebate or welfare program so that the poor can keep food on the table, but this so called "fair tax" is horribly regressive whether or not it keeps the poor fed.

Where do you get the idea that "intangible property" (whatever that is) isn't taxed?