A gentleman with a grasp of the problem.

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al, that was an interesting snippet, and (i'm guessing) that the guy was (probably) a republican.

But this is a serious question Al, and it's one that I am asking you personally. Please don't reply if you feel that it is too intrusive:-

Given the complete fuckup by the banks and investment companies (who have now made more money in the last four years than they ever made before) and the fact that Wall Street, the Dow Jones and the FTSE are overly inflated by the same organisations that got us into this trouble, how would you get us out of it, taking into account all the poorest people and the most needy, including the middle classes.

Again Al, this is a question that I would be interested in hearing your answer to. Again, if you feel it too personal, then you can take a mulligan (I think that's the term), but if you are up to the challenge, I would hear your opinion.

regards,

Graham.

P.S. Al, there is NO sarcasm in this post at all, please read it as you see it.

I don't know the political affiliation of the guy on the video, I would surmise that he is middle to right. The point is that income tax filing for most small business gives the impression that it is the income of the owner and not the company, thereby giving the false idea that the owner is a high income person. I filed that way myself when building custom homes, I know many small business owners that do the same. If I built two $1 million dollar homes in a year and my company profit was 16%, the company made $320k. That wasn't my income, $200k was invested back into the business, but that $320K would put me into the over $250K income tax bracket they want to create. I'm not an accountant and don't know why. I only know that's the way it is. If they want to go after the ultra rich, have at it, but leave the small business owner alone. Small businesses constituted 99.7 per cent of all employers, and employ 52 percent of the private workforce. I don't think that is a part of the economy we want to harm.

For one thing, I wouldn't have bailed out the banks, investment companies or car companies. Let them file bankruptcy, restructure, and renegotiate labor contracts, no company should be to big to fail. The US government can't handle it's own debt problems.
I feel that we, the people should through non executive heavy, charitible sources, help the less fortunate. I have no problem giving, I just don't want to make the head of the charity a fat cat. And I feel that we should give to the people that truly need, not the leaches of society. You shouldn't be rewarded for being irresponsible. That's as serious as I'm likely to get.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

If I may be bold enough to put in my 2cents worth. To make tax more equitable I would do away with income tax and all other forms of tax and introduce a transaction tax. Financial transaction tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This would have the effect of big business, financial institutions and the rich paying much more tax than the poor.
Of course this is a pipe dream and will not happen as it would make collecting tax so simple that Accountants, tax lawyers and those working for the I.R.S. would be looking for something else to do.
I would also look towards an eventual return to the gold standard, which would have the effect of limiting the amount of $ that a Government can print. Another dream which will not happen I am afraid.

 

[Graham]

If I may be bold enough to put in my 2cents worth. To make tax more equitable I would do away with income tax and all other forms of tax and introduce a transaction tax. Financial transaction tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This would have the effect of big business, financial institutions and the rich paying much more tax than the poor.
Of course this is a pipe dream and will not happen as it would make collecting tax so simple that Accountants, tax lawyers and those working for the I.R.S. would be looking for something else to do.
I would also look towards an eventual return to the gold standard, which would have the effect of limiting the amount of $ that a Government can print. Another dream which will not happen I am afraid.

Pete, I'm (in the round) in favour of a transactional tax and agree with you there.The tax can then be graduated to be higher for more expensive goods, thereby allowing a reduction (or no tax at all) on essentials, thereby helping those who have little money. There can be nothing wrong with lumping high taxes on a private jet, and no tax on a pint of milk surely?

 

[Graham]

I don't know the political affiliation of the guy on the video, I would surmise that he is middle to right. The point is that income tax filing for most small business gives the impression that it is the income of the owner and not the company, thereby giving the false idea that the owner is a high income person. I filed that way myself when building custom homes, I know many small business owners that do the same. If I built two $1 million dollar homes in a year and my company profit was 16%, the company made $320k. That wasn't my income, $200k was invested back into the business, but that $320K would put me into the over $250K income tax bracket they want to create. I'm not an accountant and don't know why. I only know that's the way it is. If they want to go after the ultra rich, have at it, but leave the small business owner alone. Small businesses constituted 99.7 per cent of all employers, and employ 52 percent of the private workforce. I don't think that is a part of the economy we want to harm.

For one thing, I wouldn't have bailed out the banks, investment companies or car companies. Let them file bankruptcy, restructure, and renegotiate labor contracts, no company should be to big to fail. The US government can't handle it's own debt problems.
I feel that we, the people should through non executive heavy, charitible sources, help the less fortunate. I have no problem giving, I just don't want to make the head of the charity a fat cat. And I feel that we should give to the people that truly need, not the leaches of society. You shouldn't be rewarded for being irresponsible. That's as serious as I'm likely to get.

Al, it's a toughie...

If we hadn't bailed out our financial institutions, then we could lost much of the 17% of our GDP that comes from the fat cats in the City of London.

However, generally I agree with your sentiments. The bail out has left most people with a very bitter taste in the mouth, and has left yor economy in absolute tatters. Who creates this virtual money that is played with irresponsibly by the likes of Goldmine Sachs?

They have the ultimate get out of jail free card and that is wrong on every level. Look at who's running your Federal Reserve now. Didn't he work for a fat cat before, just like EVERY senior advisor in government? That is not the exclusive domain of the Obama presidency, it has ever been thus I'm afraid...

 

[Doug S.]

If I may be bold enough to put in my 2cents worth. To make tax more equitable I would do away with income tax and all other forms of tax and introduce a transaction tax. Financial transaction tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This would have the effect of big business, financial institutions and the rich paying much more tax than the poor.
Of course this is a pipe dream and will not happen as it would make collecting tax so simple that Accountants, tax lawyers and those working for the I.R.S. would be looking for something else to do.

I've had a running discussion with a good friend regarding transaction based taxes...so far I have been an oponent of this form of taxation for one reason--it seems to me that those with "excess" income, i.e. those who make enough that they don't have to spend every penny just to survive, would essentially "escape" taxation on the funds they don't spend, or funds that traded hands through private transactions. I could see a very wealthy individual putting their "excess" income into, say, collector items like stamps, coins, even precious metals or precious gems, buying those items from individuals who did not have to collect and forward taxes on those transactions to the government. Those items might well be expected to increase in value, thereby creating increased wealth for those already wealthy individuals. The only positive aspect of this taxation method would be the abolition of those very IRS agents and the attending lawyers and accountants you mention, Pete, for they are truly bloodsucking idiots here in the U.S. However, such a method of funding our country is and has long been proposed by one of our "renegade" Republicans, Ron Paul. I like him more and more :thumbsup: !!

Pete, I'm (in the round) in favour of a transactional tax and agree with you there.The tax can then be graduated to be higher for more expensive goods, thereby allowing a reduction (or no tax at all) on essentials, thereby helping those who have little money. There can be nothing wrong with lumping high taxes on a private jet, and no tax on a pint of milk surely?

This method MIGHT go a long way toward answering the many reservations I have regarding a transactional based taxation method and the inequitable impact it would have on the poor. However, IMHO, we would need to find a way to "tax" those private transactions I mentioned above....maybe we might still need the tax collectors at the county level, unless a state enacted a law similar to Arizona here in the U.S. (quotes from a different automotive forum):

When I registered mine, Scotttsdale Airpark, the only thing I had to pay was for the for the license. I did bring reciepts for the motor, trans, paint etc. just in case but they did not even ask to see them. I did not pay any state or local taxes.

Really? AZ must be WAAAAY different from TX...I bought my replica from a private party and when I went to apply for the title, the clerk made me pay sales tax on the full price (seller from TX, I registered the replica in TX).
I can't imagine ANY state that wouldn't want their "cut" of property sold in their state....or, alternatively, registered in their state (did that, too, on a Honda Accord I bought in TX and registered in KS, had to pay sales tax there even though the seller was from TX).

There is no sales tax on private sales in Arizona, that includes automobiles.

Of course, this would apply ONLY to state taxes...but, it does indicate an area where tax evasion would be pursued by those "wily" enough to take advantage of the "transactional based" taxation system.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Ian Anderson]

I've had a running discussion with a good friend regarding transaction based taxes...so far I have been an oponent of this form of taxation for one reason--it seems to me that those with "excess" income, i.e. those who make enough that they don't have to spend every penny just to survive, would essentially "escape" taxation on the funds they don't spend, or funds that traded hands through private transactions. I could see a very wealthy individual putting their "excess" income into, say, collector items like stamps, coins, even precious metals or precious gems, buying those items from individuals who did not have to collect and forward taxes on those transactions to the government. Those items might well be expected to increase in value, thereby creating increased wealth for those already wealthy individuals. The only positive aspect of this taxation method would be the abolition of those very IRS agents and the attending lawyers and accountants you mention, Pete, for they are truly bloodsucking idiots here in the U.S. However, such a method of funding our country is and has long been proposed by one of our "renegade" Republicans, Ron Paul. I like him more and more :thumbsup: !!



This method MIGHT go a long way toward answering the many reservations I have regarding a transactional based taxation method and the inequitable impact it would have on the poor. However, IMHO, we would need to find a way to "tax" those private transactions I mentioned above....maybe we might still need the tax collectors at the county level, unless a state enacted a law similar to Arizona here in the U.S. (quotes from a different automotive forum):







Of course, this would apply ONLY to state taxes...but, it does indicate an area where tax evasion would be pursued by those "wily" enough to take advantage of the "transactional based" taxation system.

Cheers from Doug!!

Doug

Easy
Every time anyone deposits any money in any account deduct the 10%. (Or whatever % is deemed necessary - I beleive it will be much lower)
You get a pay cheque you are taxed 10%
You get a pension payment - you guessed it 10%
You sell your car again 10% removed from the funds
You move your funds from bank a too bank b 10%
You pay for that Da Vinci Masterpiece and when he banks your cheque / deposiit 10% is paid
Pay for a house 10% when you transfer the funds
Pay rent the rentor will pay 10%
Damn even tax the the fines you get for going 10 over the limit!

So the poor will pay more than their share?
Nope as a larger % of their expenditure is on essentials and these have less processing. Less processing = less payments
Buy meat and veg at a market and probably only the farmer will pay the 10%
Buy a meal in a restaurant and the farmers pays, the wholesaler pays, the retailer pays and the the punter in the restaurant basically ends up paying for all these "Taxes on taxes"

Oh and to safeguard the potential drain as the wealthy money leaves the country - take 10% where that cannot prove it is paying for something being imported

Now here is how it works
Because all the banks took bailouts it's time for them to pay back
They must install systems and pay over these amounts on a weekly basis from every account in the country and pay direct to the treasury.

Now being an account I like the whole idea as it keeps everything really simple.

Ian

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Spot on Ian, but when you consider the amount of transactions done on a daily
Basis the amount would be less than 1%. Nowhere for anyone to hide and the deficit wiped out.

 

[Ian Anderson]

Spot on Ian, but when you consider the amount of transactions done on a daily
Basis the amount would be less than 1%. Nowhere for anyone to hide and the deficit wiped out.

I agree Pete
I seem to remember I calculated it out once at about 2% based on the UK (pre Gordon Brown's iverspending) that paid for all Government and included the NHS

But "most" people would jump at the thought of paying "only 10%"

Ian

 

[domtoni]

Jim, so what is your opinion on those polls quoted by Morris?

 

[Jim Craik]

Mt opinion is that Mr Mossis is a lying sack of S**t!

 

[domtoni]

Think what you want but prove it.

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

I should not have to explain to you how to check things, it's very easy.

Just Google "Dick Morris lies" there is much information.

 

[domtoni]

But I am awaiting your response on the poll information. The first one shows up as a Media Matters analysis. I don't believe Media Matters and the other web sites have no credence.

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

You continually post garbage from bias, missleading sources, I just thought you should see how we feel with almost every post you make!

Kind of frustrating isn't it?

I'll make you a deal, if you do not post crap from bias, missleading sources, I won't either.

Dick Morris....................................lier!

 

[domtoni]

The polls are not garbage. And no comment Jim. I will not make any further comments until you comment on the poll outcomes.

 

[Jim Craik]

Damian

Under no circumstances will I listen to anything that lying sack of s**t says. Nor will I open his web site!

You want me to look at polls, post polls!

Damian, until there is a Republican candidate to compare with, polls mean NOTHING!

You are going to have Obama for another four years and there is nothing you can do about it

********

Here is a USA Today poll. Hows that working for you?

Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty has raised $4 million, while fellow candidate Newt Gingrich has more than $1 million in debt. And President Obama is sitting on $37 million in his campaign account. Bachmann has raised $3.6.

In a report filed this afternoon, Obama reported $46.3 million in receipts and $37.1 million cash in the bank. His report does not include more than $38 million he raised for the Democratic National Committee, which will help the Obama campaign with voter turnout and advertising.

The "smary money" has spoken!

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

Keep in mind that all the Republican funds will be spent attacking each other, so its all LOOKING GOOD!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

So I guess that we've regressed to the "the one that raises the most money gets to be president" To quote Jim C, "how sad".

 

[Jim Craik]

Al,

I'm pretty sure it is less futile (sad as you say) than you are making it out to be.

People donate for three basic reasons:

(1) They donate to the person who they feel will do the best job in the areas that they care about.

(2) They donate to the person most likely to win, so their donations will carry some influence.

(3) They donate to both sides so their donations will carry some influence.

 

[Jim Craik]

Al,

The person who spends the most money does not get to be President, its the person who wins the most electoral votes who gets to be President.

Al here is a good example for you.

In the last California election, Republican Meg Whitman tried to buy the Governors office, by spending a record amount, something like $115,000,000 mostly her own money.

She lost big time.

*********

Al you seem to have missed the point. The person who is most popular often raises the most $, and often wins elections.