It's in his policy.... you cant speculate about the Kerry, because he isn't in power... yet...

Muggaz, those times when I don't think you're a particularly sharp stick come up when you say things like the above.

Where exactly do you think John Kerry has been for the past 19 years? In the US Senate.  Where are these tax laws made? In the Senate. 19 years isn't enough? I mean, heck, Kerry, being a billionaire and all, would be an excellent person to have proposed a law to stop these "loopholes" since his wife's family has made extensive use of things such as trust funds and other tax sheltering devices. 

The thing about "loopholes" is that they're expensive to maintain at the levels that will save a lot of money.  It's a matter of keeping the tax rate lower than the cost of making use of them.  Raise my taxes to 50%, for instance, and I suspect there are ways where I could get an effective tax rate of 45% by using some sort of accounting scheme. 

But where it is, currently, at 33% or whatever, there are no "loopholes" that do better than simply paying the taxes. That was Bush's point.

The tax rate during the Carter years was something like 70%. And when Reagan brought it down to the low 30s, government income actually INCREASED.  Why? Because rather than people messing around with complicated tax shelters with all the inherent waste, they just paid the taxes.

I do everything I can to keep my taxes less. But I still pay tons in taxes.  But raise them high enough and suddenly there'd be a "company cottage" and a "company X" and "Company Y" and so forth as you get into creative accounting to write things off that you wouldn't normally write off.  Right now, it's not worth doing that because I'd rather re-invest that money into the company since the taxes are low.  But raise taxes high and then it becomes a "if I don't spend it, the government will just take it so I'll find things to spend it on."

 

Muggaz -

My HTML tags ain't working with the browser I'm using just now.

The AuZZie thing was a small joke. And thanks for stimulating an interesting discussion, even if we disagree.

G'Day
Daiwa

Muggaz, those times when I don't think you're a particularly sharp stick come up when you say things like the above.

Yes Brad, I am very daft.

I have said it a million times... I dont care what John Kerry is doing in the senate... how many US senators are there? yet you isolate him because he is the running candidate against Bush... don't incinuate that I am dense by twisting my words to suit your needs.

George W. Bush represents the United States of America as the figurehead - so essentially, the buck stops with him. I dont blame the US senate for going to Iraq, I blame George W. Bush... just like the US senate didn't pull the world out of the Cuban Missile crisis... it was the President.

It would seem that the President is only the most powerful man in the world when it suits you... If you beleive Bush's proposed tax cuts for the richer demographics will actually increase tax revenue for the USA, then vote for him... just quit wasting your time patronising me. I hope I dont offend anyone here, but it would appear to me that the US senate are rather corrupt and only interested in looking after themselves, rather than the people of America...

This is the second time in as many weeks I have drawn this conclussion...

BAM!!!

Dave:

Sure for every dollar up to $311,101 you are taxed roughly 28%. Then, for every dollar thereafter you are taxed 35%... that is your private income. What you and others seem to be ignorant of, is that this money was taxed ALREADY when it was considered the income of your BUSINESS. If your business has previously re-invested its profits, those profits are taxed... and on, and on, and on...

• Your business makes a profit, and the government taxes it.
• Then, you take your cut and the government taxes it up to 35%, AGAIN, as your personal income.
• Then, whatever you invested that money into is subject to capital gains and dividend taxes.
• Then, your state steps in and starts the whole process over again, AT THE BUSINESS LEVEL
• If you have anything left for "luxury items", you pay a special tax on that as well.
• When the time comes to pay property tax on all that luxury, you are again taxed at a punitive rate.

This kind of taxation is egregious, and doesn't even take into consideration the host of other idiotic taxes our income goes to AFTER we have paid state and local taxes. Take a look at your phone/utility bill sometime. That is money going to taxes that has already been taxed at least two or three times.

Take Social Security, for instance. Your income is taxed before Social Security and other witholding. Then, when you take advantage of these benefits you paid in, it is taxable income...again. You have paid tax on your Social Security witholding twice. Then, when you spend it you'll pay whatever utility/sales/whatever taxes they can trump up to bite again.

People like Dave love to take a single step out of the tax system in the US and pretend that is that. If you want to pretend that the wealthy pay their 35% and are free from thereon, fine, but don't bludugeon me with your blindness and intolerably bad haiku. You can't dispute the fact that the "wealthy" in the US pay the lion's share of taxes, and you can only choose not to see that their tax burden is *vastly* greater than your grossly understated 27%, even if they take advantage of "loopholes".

but it would appear to me that the US senate are rather corrupt and only interested in looking after themselves, rather than the people of America...

You may be more right than wrong with that statement, Muggaz - all the more reason to be at least a tad concerned with what Kerry has been doing the past 19 years. I sure hope you don't give all your national politicians a free ride for everything but their actions as PM.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Americans should look to the UK tax system to learn how to tax the populace. It is very fair and proportional, but I still won't contribute as I bribe numerous tax inspectors every year!

I agree with Muggaz that the senate seems very corrupt.  And where does Kerry come from? The senate.

And lowering taxes can increase government revenue because it frees capital for investement which grows at a higher rate than inflation.

The first question should be, what is the ethical basis for saying that one person should pay 10X more for the same services as another person?

But government isn't a service so it isn't correct to compare it to services like cable is it?

There has to be a significant reward in exchange for that risk and stress. If you take it away, then people like me who create jobs have less icentive to keep doing that and go find a "regular" job.

Brad, you know what a strawman is, so why do you use it as an arguing tactic so often? No one has argued that there shouldn't be rewards for risks.

How exactly is that a strawman argument?

When people villianize the rich they are implicitly saying that the rich somehow became rich from illgotten ways. YOU may not believe that but I've spoken to many people over the years who believe that wealthy people almost always do shady things to get that way.

The whole point of having the superintendent make $80k and the kitchen worker making $12k is to create an incentive for people to try to gain the skills to be more than a kitchen worker. Because, as a society, the more skills we have, the more opportuniteis we create for ourselves AND others.

That kitchen worker isn't very likely to be creating any new jobs.  The superintendent, by contrast, by his function, creates jobs. As a society, we need people who create wealth (one way or the other). Public employees (like superintendents) aren't very good examples because they're not really subject to market forces like the private sector typically is. But it's the same general thing.  We need people to create wealth. Either by creating jobs, inventing new things, or creating new opportunities.

As we sit back in our air conditioned houses running our personal computers running all kidns of various software talking over a cable modem or whatever via the Internet, those thigns were created by people who had amassed valuable skills. And material benefit is a great motivator to get people to aquire those skills. Skills that, ultimately, we all benefit from.  Even the kitchen worker.

But government isn't a service so it isn't correct to compare it to services like cable is it?

The government's not a service? What exactly do you imagine the government is? It's a service provider. What are my tax dollars being used for?

How exactly is that a strawman argument?

Bahahahaa! My mistake. When I reread what I wrote here I became totally confused. I couldn't figure out why I said that. Finally I remembered that I had been reading another blog at the same time as this one (I do that when JU server gets really slow). The discussion there coverered similar issues and you were saying similar things there and so I got everything mixed up.

The first question should be, what is the ethical basis for saying that one person should pay 10X more for the same services as another person?

I confused this one as well with one where you list cable and phone services in your example, but here you didn't. You are essentially saying the same thing you just presented it differently. That's why my reply mentioned cable even though it's not in the quote I made of your argument.

Anyway, since I just totally bothced things up I am just going to go stand over there and work on getting my foot out of my mouth.

I am extremely wealthy but still I pay in the name of tax. Every year I have to spend on hookers and holidays for numerous tax inspectors from our dear old Inland Revenue, all in the name of tax evasion!

Don't say the rich don't pay through the nose my dear boy.


Dammit! I'm gone several months and "Sir Peter Maxwell" still hasn't been booted off this site. For God's sake, would the admin. please do something about his bogus pathetic butt and ban his i.p. ? There isn't anything more depressing to me than some 'net poser pretending to be someone he isn't. I wouldn't mind so much if he had anything of value to contribute, but his constant grabs for attention nearly ruin the otherwise decent debate on this 'site. I simply hope everyone has had the ability to ignore his plaintive mewings for focus on him then the discussion. Off topic, I know, but the fact that such individuals are still hanging around makes me disappointed and sad for him and those having to put up with him.

There isn't anything more depressing to me than some 'net poser pretending to be someone he isn't

And there isn't anything more funny than watchin' someone get worked up over a 'net poser'!

Now Deference - do you actually have anything of value to add to the debate? or are you just fueling the fire?

Jolly good show old chap!!!

For England and Saint George!!!

BAM!!!

What a cheap shot, Muggaz. If you look over my other posts, you'll see that I am serious about taking part. Why don't you take the high road instead of the obvious and incendiary. Can you think of a good reason to keep idiots around, better yet, why side with them and act just as immaturely? Bam, indeed. Loser.