Airliners.net

Quite an inspirational speech by Historian Rutger Bregman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

So can we now talk about taxation? And a fair share to be paid to society.

Leave all the crap out about ideology, talk about paying a fair share. The difference between intellect and wisdom. It doesn't seem fair that Apple or Starbucks pays effectively less than 2% corporate tax and my nice family owned coffee cafe on the corner pays 25%. Or taxation on an income of wealth is much less than taxation on income or labor. In the Netherlands the percentage of taxation of wealth has dropped by half in the past 30years, that cab has to come from taxation of labor.

Dutchy wrote:

It doesn't seem fair that Apple or Starbucks pays effectively less than 2% corporate tax and my nice family owned coffee cafe on the corner pays 25%. .

Don't forget Amazon.

I'm 100% for adjusting our tax policies to not favor those who can essentially buy themselves massive discounts on their taxes.

That said, in the US, discontent with tax loopholes granted to the extremely wealthy and large corporations is starting to turn into scapegoating of the rich. I don't like political scapegoating, it doesn't lead to good things.

We should simply focus on changing policies that give unfair advantages. Let's patch up loopholes and reform campaign finance.

I agree. Everyone should pay 10% Federal on all income (personal) or profit (business). For those who don’t own a business, it comes right out of your paycheck with no tax return to file. You pay it right then and there and you’re done. People need to start paying their fair share.

Jouhou wrote:

I'm 100% for adjusting our tax policies to not favor those who can essentially buy themselves massive discounts on their taxes.

That said, in the US, discontent with tax loopholes granted to the extremely wealthy and large corporations is starting to turn into scapegoating of the rich. I don't like political scapegoating, it doesn't lead to good things.

We should simply focus on changing policies that give unfair advantages. Let's patch up loopholes and reform campaign finance.

In the US you have rich people openly buying elections and elected officials (and political jobs), so at that point it's not really scapegoating is it ?

I believe the best and fairest tax system is still graduated but "flat" in each bracket. Additionally I say base the tax on what is spent/ used by the individual during the year. However the money was derived.

Tugg

Aesma wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

I'm 100% for adjusting our tax policies to not favor those who can essentially buy themselves massive discounts on their taxes.

That said, in the US, discontent with tax loopholes granted to the extremely wealthy and large corporations is starting to turn into scapegoating of the rich. I don't like political scapegoating, it doesn't lead to good things.

We should simply focus on changing policies that give unfair advantages. Let's patch up loopholes and reform campaign finance.

In the US you have rich people openly buying elections and elected officials (and political jobs), so at that point it's not really scapegoating is it ?

They do this because they can. We need to grow a pair and take away their cheating privileges before we get mad at the actual people.

Dutchy wrote:

Quite an inspirational speech by Historian Rutger Bregman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

So can we now talk about taxation? And a fair share to be paid to society.

Leave all the crap out about ideology, talk about paying a fair share. The difference between intellect and wisdom. It doesn't seem fair that Apple or Starbucks pays effectively less than 2% corporate tax and my nice family owned coffee cafe on the corner pays 25%. Or taxation on an income of wealth is much less than taxation on income or labor. In the Netherlands the percentage of taxation of wealth has dropped by half in the past 30years, that cab has to come from taxation of labor.

Large corporations pay 2% effective because the tax code created loopholes and allows for deductions that benefit those corporations.
And who created this tax code? Politicians.
So if you want to change the situation of having large taxation differences between large and small businesses, start pointing your finger at government. THEY are the ones that write the tax code. THEY are the ones that take handouts from BIg Business and do their bidding, while faking outrage about a situation THEY created themselves.

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Quite an inspirational speech by Historian Rutger Bregman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

So can we now talk about taxation? And a fair share to be paid to society.

Leave all the crap out about ideology, talk about paying a fair share. The difference between intellect and wisdom. It doesn't seem fair that Apple or Starbucks pays effectively less than 2% corporate tax and my nice family owned coffee cafe on the corner pays 25%. Or taxation on an income of wealth is much less than taxation on income or labor. In the Netherlands the percentage of taxation of wealth has dropped by half in the past 30years, that cab has to come from taxation of labor.

Large corporations pay 2% effective because the tax code created loopholes and allows for deductions that benefit those corporations.
And who created this tax code? Politicians.
So if you want to change the situation of having large taxation differences between large and small businesses, start pointing your finger at government. THEY are the ones that write the tax code. THEY are the ones that take handouts from BIg Business and do their bidding, while faking outrage about a situation THEY created themselves.

Oh absolutely, it is the government whom creates these loopholes, so it is up to them to resolve those. In the EU you see that different countries are played against each other for bidding for companies. Ireland has a low tax regime, thus Apple, Google and a number of other tech companies base their European HQ's in Ireland. The other side is that internationals take advantage of different tax regimes. Profit tax is quite flexible, Shell, for instance, hasn't paid any corporate tax in the Netherland for the past 10 odd years, while their profits are quite reasonable, on paper their profit is zero, so no tax.

For society at large, we put our brightest on a task to pay as little tax as possible. That is just crazy. Their brains should be used for something better.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Quite an inspirational speech by Historian Rutger Bregman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

So can we now talk about taxation? And a fair share to be paid to society.

Leave all the crap out about ideology, talk about paying a fair share. The difference between intellect and wisdom. It doesn't seem fair that Apple or Starbucks pays effectively less than 2% corporate tax and my nice family owned coffee cafe on the corner pays 25%. Or taxation on an income of wealth is much less than taxation on income or labor. In the Netherlands the percentage of taxation of wealth has dropped by half in the past 30years, that cab has to come from taxation of labor.

Large corporations pay 2% effective because the tax code created loopholes and allows for deductions that benefit those corporations.
And who created this tax code? Politicians.
So if you want to change the situation of having large taxation differences between large and small businesses, start pointing your finger at government. THEY are the ones that write the tax code. THEY are the ones that take handouts from BIg Business and do their bidding, while faking outrage about a situation THEY created themselves.

Oh absolutely, it is the government whom creates these loopholes, so it is up to them to resolve those. In the EU you see that different countries are played against each other for bidding for companies. Ireland has a low tax regime, thus Apple, Google and a number of other tech companies base their European HQ's in Ireland. The other side is that internationals take advantage of different tax regimes. Profit tax is quite flexible, Shell, for instance, hasn't paid any corporate tax in the Netherland for the past 10 odd years, while their profits are quite reasonable, on paper their profit is zero, so no tax.

For society at large, we put our brightest on a task to pay as little tax as possible. That is just crazy. Their brains should be used for something better.

Indeed. Same situation is played out in the US between states. Listen to this podcast for instance: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016 ... s-the-road

Dutchy wrote:

Oh absolutely, it is the government whom creates these loopholes, so it is up to them to resolve those. In the EU you see that different countries are played against each other for bidding for companies. Ireland has a low tax regime, thus Apple, Google and a number of other tech companies base their European HQ's in Ireland. The other side is that internationals take advantage of different tax regimes. Profit tax is quite flexible, Shell, for instance, hasn't paid any corporate tax in the Netherland for the past 10 odd years, while their profits are quite reasonable, on paper their profit is zero, so no tax.

For society at large, we put our brightest on a task to pay as little tax as possible. That is just crazy. Their brains should be used for something better.

In my opinion, taxes in the society must be flat, simple and low. Keep in mind - those deemed "best and brightest" achieved this status due to a lot of education, student loan, nights in the office. Nobody get anything for free in this world. And what do they get in exchange in most "free" societies? Extractive taxes above 50%. And yelling "it's all these 1%, they stole everything!". In my experience - for a family, the state should not aim to take more than a quarter all-in for a family, and no more than 30% for a single individual. And yes - rate must be ideally flat, or as close to being flat as possible. Everyone must pay something. Then you feel the share you are paying is fair, and not extractive being marketed as "fair".

Let's ask this - why do offshores and Irish schemes exist in the first place? Think of it as "jurisdiction competition". Business needs certain services - ability to place a facility, court system, legislature, banking services, etc. Some other jurisdiction is willing to offer that for less, and thus gets taxes from that business. What's wrong with that? Yes, Ireland is willing to provide the same for less than Netherlands or the USA, and thus wins in that competition. That's about it. If other states do not want that - they need to cut down on their appetites. Just that. The future is after those governments that learn to be sized just right, efficient, and of course cost-efficient.

And I can't say that there is no understanding of this on the top. In the USA, Trump lowered corporate income tax - a step in the right direction; military and social programs need to be downsized and pruned aggressively. In Netherlands, there is 30% tax credit for foreign employees (essentially, Dutch government agrees to take from a foreigner 1/3 less than from a Dutch from the same wage), which is also right - 52% taxes cannot be part of a compelling job offer to anyone.

DL717 wrote:

I agree. Everyone should pay 10% Federal on all income (personal) or profit (business). For those who don’t own a business, it comes right out of your paycheck with no tax return to file. You pay it right then and there and you’re done. People need to start paying their fair share.

Perfectly agree. Simple and flat taxes for everyone. In Illinois, it's like that; they have flat state tax of 3.5-4.5% (depending on a year and what they need to fund). The Constitution in Illinois does not allow progressive tax rates, only flat one. And this has proven to be rather powerful stimulus for politicians to keep state's expenses in check.

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Large corporations pay 2% effective because the tax code created loopholes and allows for deductions that benefit those corporations.
And who created this tax code? Politicians.
So if you want to change the situation of having large taxation differences between large and small businesses, start pointing your finger at government. THEY are the ones that write the tax code. THEY are the ones that take handouts from BIg Business and do their bidding, while faking outrage about a situation THEY created themselves.

Oh absolutely, it is the government whom creates these loopholes, so it is up to them to resolve those. In the EU you see that different countries are played against each other for bidding for companies. Ireland has a low tax regime, thus Apple, Google and a number of other tech companies base their European HQ's in Ireland. The other side is that internationals take advantage of different tax regimes. Profit tax is quite flexible, Shell, for instance, hasn't paid any corporate tax in the Netherland for the past 10 odd years, while their profits are quite reasonable, on paper their profit is zero, so no tax.

For society at large, we put our brightest on a task to pay as little tax as possible. That is just crazy. Their brains should be used for something better.

Indeed. Same situation is played out in the US between states. Listen to this podcast for instance: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016 ... s-the-road

Sure, race to the bottom for corporates, for the individual that isn't possible, that's why taxation of labor is so much easier than the taxation of profit.

anrec80 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

I agree. Everyone should pay 10% Federal on all income (personal) or profit (business). For those who don’t own a business, it comes right out of your paycheck with no tax return to file. You pay it right then and there and you’re done. People need to start paying their fair share.

Perfectly agree. Simple and flat taxes for everyone. In Illinois, it's like that; they have flat state tax of 3.5-4.5% (depending on a year and what they need to fund). The Constitution in Illinois does not allow progressive tax rates, only flat one. And this has proven to be rather powerful stimulus for politicians to keep state's expenses in check.

In the Illinois in the USA, the one running huge deficits, billions in IOUs, pensions underfunded, that Illinois?


GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In the Illinois in the USA, the one running huge deficits, billions in IOUs, pensions underfunded, that Illinois?


GF

Well there is only one state of Illinois. And in that one - nonetheless nobody rips off the remainders of the middle class. They recently raised flat state tax from 3.5% to 4.4% to combat these. And everyone chips in, not just some abstract “1%”. And that is absolutely fair - everyone uses state’s services, and everyone is contributing towards them. In jurisdictions with progressive tax system, a very significant chunk of people don’t contribute anything at all towards the public services they use.

anrec80 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Perfectly agree. Simple and flat taxes for everyone. In Illinois, it's like that; they have flat state tax of 3.5-4.5% (depending on a year and what they need to fund). The Constitution in Illinois does not allow progressive tax rates, only flat one. And this has proven to be rather powerful stimulus for politicians to keep state's expenses in check.

Steve Forbes where are you!

anrec80 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

In the Illinois in the USA, the one running huge deficits, billions in IOUs, pensions underfunded, that Illinois?


GF

Well there is only one state of Illinois. And in that one - nonetheless nobody rips off the remainders of the middle class. They recently raised flat state tax from 3.5% to 4.4% to combat these. And everyone chips in, not just some abstract “1%”. And that is absolutely fair - everyone uses state’s services, and everyone is contributing towards them. In jurisdictions with progressive tax system, a very significant chunk of people don’t contribute anything at all towards the public services they use.

Just stop dude, you're killing me!

Having been born, raised and spending a good part of my adult life there I can only come to the conclusion that the Illinois you speak of is in a parallel universe

Dieuwer wrote:

Indeed. Same situation is played out in the US between states. Listen to this podcast for instance: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016 ... s-the-road

Yepp - I refer to this as "competition of jurisdictions". And it's intensifying now on global scale, not just between the U.S. states.

LMP737 wrote:

Just stop dude, you're killing me!

Having been born, raised and spending a good part of my adult life there I can only come to the conclusion that the Illinois you speak of is in a parallel universe

Well, I understand you have some issues and challenges in your state, but every state has its fair share of those. California and New York are in the same boat. Actual issues may be different, but they are there nonetheless, regardless of extractive taxes.

anrec80 wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Just stop dude, you're killing me!

Having been born, raised and spending a good part of my adult life there I can only come to the conclusion that the Illinois you speak of is in a parallel universe

Well, I understand you have some issues and challenges in your state, but every state has its fair share of those. California and New York are in the same boat. Actual issues may be different, but they are there nonetheless, regardless of extractive taxes.

I don't live there anymore. But I will tell you this, Illinois is a basket case compared to California and New York. The only thing it has over those two states is that housing is cheaper in the Chicago metro area compared to NYC, LA or Frisco.

anrec80 wrote:

In Netherlands, there is 30% tax credit for foreign employees (essentially, Dutch government agrees to take from a foreigner 1/3 less than from a Dutch from the same wage), which is also right - 52% taxes cannot be part of a compelling job offer to anyone.

This law has changed as of this year. The tax credit is now valid for 5 years instead of he previous 10 years (resulting in much outcry among expats as it initially was valid for the current expats as well). Also note that this tax credit applies to expats (AFAIK outside the EU) only, thus not to all foreigners. Fortunately the highest bracket in the Netherlands is reduced to 49.5% as of this year.

LJ wrote:

This law has changed as of this year. The tax credit is now valid for 5 years instead of he previous 10 years (resulting in much outcry among expats as it initially was valid for the current expats as well). Also note that this tax credit applies to expats (AFAIK outside the EU) only, thus not to all foreigners. Fortunately the highest bracket in the Netherlands is reduced to 49.5% as of this year.

And nonetheless they are doing it and haven't abolished it. 49.5% is still way too much. I'd like to see them dropping it by a third for everyone, not just expats.

LMP737 wrote:

I don't live there anymore. But I will tell you this, Illinois is a basket case compared to California and New York. The only thing it has over those two states is that housing is cheaper in the Chicago metro area compared to NYC, LA or Frisco.

Probably. And it has one more important advantage - taxes are 5 percentage points lower then in CA and NY. And salaries don't lag much behind.

We need to bring an end to profit shifting and corporations being able to choose where they are legally domiciled - if your employees, factory, suppliers and customers are all in Australia, then you are NOT a Hong Kong company and cannot expect to be taxed as one.

Also time to bring an end to citizenship being for sale, so that rich people can get a passport that is fiscally 'convenient'.

zkojq wrote:

We need to bring an end to profit shifting and corporations being able to choose where they are legally domiciled - if your employees, factory, suppliers and customers are all in Australia, then you are NOT a Hong Kong company and cannot expect to be taxed as one.

Also time to bring an end to citizenship being for sale, so that rich people can get a passport that is fiscally 'convenient'.

I have a better idea. Why doesn’t Australian state learns to become more cost-efficient and cuts down on its appetites? Then it can compete with Hong Kong and other jurisdictions, and not rip its citizens and businesses off.

zkojq wrote:

We need to bring an end to profit shifting and corporations being able to choose where they are legally domiciled - if your employees, factory, suppliers and customers are all in Australia, then you are NOT a Hong Kong company and cannot expect to be taxed as one.

Also time to bring an end to citizenship being for sale, so that rich people can get a passport that is fiscally 'convenient'.

You realize to achieve this you have to lower taxes right?

NIKV69 wrote:

You realize to achieve this you have to lower taxes right?

Yes, this is true. But in the Western world very few want to see and understand it this way. It’s by far more convenient for an average Joe (and politicians) to continue pushing the idea of “fair share”.

Now that we are overhauling the global tax system on a.net - - we should also address the discrepancy in the way products are produced and imported.
Henceforth, it should be illegal to import a product into the USA that has been made by methods that are illegal in the USA itself. For instance, an iPhone produced by child labor in Asia SHALL NOT be import into the USA.

This should be completely self-evident and logical: if you are outraged if child-labor was used to make your iPhone in say Kentucky and want it banned, then you should also be outraged if a child somewhere else on the planet makes your iPhone and ships it to you. Otherwise, you're a big fat hypocrite.

So, you’d rather that child not work and not be educated? That’s likely the choice there. Child labor is both a legal and economic issue. We outlawed when it became more productive for children to be educated and learn instead of being endangered at hard labor. Laws were also passed to reduc3 competition for adult labor.



Gf

Wait a min gents - what do these labor conditions and child labor things do with taxes?

Dutchy wrote:

So can we now talk about taxation? And a fair share to be paid to society.

Happily.

First of all, taxation amounts to theft. A state is an involuntary association of people. Involuntary "contribution" of funds is nothing but theft.

Having settled that, we could excessively easily get rid of all federal income taxes tomorrow, both for companies and for individuals.
How do we do that? Cut off the fat from government.

An easy example would be the State Department. Under Hillary's leadership, the budget for State admin doubled (!), so by cutting it back to 2007 levels we save a lot of money right there. Also, we can't afford international assistance so there's another easy saving. We could cut two thirds of all State spending without any adverse effects.
There, I just saved the American people 60 billion dollars per year. You're welcome, America!

We could go on and on like that. The fact of the matter is, most tax money is spent on useless crap that we don't need and subject to waste, fraud and abuse. We just need to can it.

aviationaware wrote:

There, I just saved the American people 60 billion dollars per year. You're welcome, America!

Wait a min - we a trillion dollars per year just in deficits!

anrec80 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

We need to bring an end to profit shifting and corporations being able to choose where they are legally domiciled - if your employees, factory, suppliers and customers are all in Australia, then you are NOT a Hong Kong company and cannot expect to be taxed as one.

Also time to bring an end to citizenship being for sale, so that rich people can get a passport that is fiscally 'convenient'.

I have a better idea. Why doesn’t Australian state learns to become more cost-efficient and cuts down on its appetites? Then it can compete with Hong Kong and other jurisdictions, and not rip its citizens and businesses off.

Yes, Australian society would be much better off with less healthcare and education for kids, less roads and money for natural disasters would be great too.

You might not understand this because everyone in your bubble is aghast at the idea, but most people actually like the idea of the rich and super-rich actually paying their taxes.

Instead of continuing in abstractisms, why does everybody not state his/her ideal tax system with brackets and all.
Also please state how you plan to enforce your system.

Dieuwer wrote:

Instead of continuing in abstractisms, why does everybody not state his/her ideal tax system with brackets and all.
Also please state how you plan to enforce your system.

interesting idea, but if you want to lower th overall tax bill, you need to say where you want to cut expenditure,

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Instead of continuing in abstractisms, why does everybody not state his/her ideal tax system with brackets and all.
Also please state how you plan to enforce your system.

interesting idea, but if you want to lower th overall tax bill, you need to say where you want to cut expenditure,

Let's say we need to go with a balanced budget, and since Government never cuts spending,

We need to close the gap of 4.42 Trillion in spending from 3.42 Trillion in Revenue in 2019. To Raise 1 Trillion in extra Revenue would require an increase in the tax rates by about 30% across the board. Social Security, Medicare, Income Tax, excise tax and all.

Of course we wouldn't agree to take that type of Tax Raise after such a beautiful tax cut, but that right there is the general federal issue. Tax Cuts that boost the deficit.

Dieuwer wrote:

Instead of continuing in abstractisms, why does everybody not state his/her ideal tax system with brackets and all.
Also please state how you plan to enforce your system.

Tax businesses on turnover, not profit.

VAT in the UK is currently added to varying degrees depending on the good/service sold. Not that difficult to expand that policy to corporation tax to match whether the goods traded are high volume - low profit (i.e. bread) or low volume - high profit (apple phones).

If you are a multinational and you sell that good in my country, well you damn well pay the tax on that good or don't trade in my country. Average prices across various trade zones can also be used to prevent price gouging - with businesses on the hook to pay the difference to the govt in question.

casinterest wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Instead of continuing in abstractisms, why does everybody not state his/her ideal tax system with brackets and all.
Also please state how you plan to enforce your system.

interesting idea, but if you want to lower th overall tax bill, you need to say where you want to cut expenditure,

Let's say we need to go with a balanced budget, and since Government never cuts spending,

We need to close the gap of 4.42 Trillion in spending from 3.42 Trillion in Revenue in 2019. To Raise 1 Trillion in extra Revenue would require an increase in the tax rates by about 30% across the board. Social Security, Medicare, Income Tax, excise tax and all.

Of course we wouldn't agree to take that type of Tax Raise after such a beautiful tax cut, but that right there is the general federal issue. Tax Cuts that boost the deficit.

We are talking about what you would do. So I would say, take a fictive country: GNP of 100.000, out of that, how much would a say is tax revenue and how much would you see as government expenditure and how would you divide government spendings?

For the Netherlands it looks like this (2015 numbers):

Governmeexpenditureure
Healthcare 28%
Social security 30%
Education 13%
Local government 7%
Foreign affairs 4%
Infrastructure 4%
Interest rates 3%
Defense 3%
Domestic affairs 0%
Justice / law enforcement 4%
Economic affairs 2%
Finance 2%
Government / homes 1%
Remaining 0%

Taxation
Indirect taxes (VAT etc.) 29%
Direct taxes 27%
Remaining taxes 0%
National insurance premiums 14%
Employee insurance premiums 21%
Deficit 8%

Total taxation
35% of the Gross National Product.

In the US you could replace the sales tax by a VAT like in the EU. In France that's the biggest revenue stream, after social security contributions.

Aesma wrote:

In the US you could replace the sales tax by a VAT like in the EU. In France that's the biggest revenue stream, after social security contributions.

Sales Tax is usually state and local(city/town) in the US. A VAT would add a different level of complexity to it, but has been eyed from multiple different sources. The worry in applying it is that it would cripple the economy.

We have no revenue problem; we have a profound spending problem. Any “remedy” based upon increasing taxation to outstrip spending sufficiently to balance federal spending as it exists now (never mind paying down the debt!) would inevitably and spectacularly fail, because (1) the increased taxation would eviscerate the productive enterprise which generates the revenue from which taxes are derived in the first place, and (2) the spending would be inevitably and inexorably increased, such that the goal would be receding on an endless horizon.

The federal government should - must - be profoundly reduced in both size and power, constructed to its constitutionally-proper purposes.

sccutler wrote:

We have no revenue problem; we have a profound spending problem. Any “remedy” based upon increasing taxation to outstrip spending sufficiently to balance federal spending as it exists now (never mind paying down the debt!) would inevitably and spectacularly fail, because (1) the increased taxation would eviscerate the productive enterprise which generates the revenue from which taxes are derived in the first place, and (2) the spending would be inevitably and inexorably increased, such that the goal would be receding on an endless horizon.

The federal government should - must - be profoundly reduced in both size and power, constructed to its constitutionally-proper purposes.

The last line here is a joke. It means absolutley nothing, as everything the government does is constitutionally proper. It just happens to spend more than it takes in while doing it. Nothing can be immediatly changed, but taxation of certain items has to change to pay for what the government is putting out.

casinterest wrote:

Let's say we need to go with a balanced budget, and since Government never cuts spending,

We need to close the gap of 4.42 Trillion in spending from 3.42 Trillion in Revenue in 2019. To Raise 1 Trillion in extra Revenue would require an increase in the tax rates by about 30% across the board. Social Security, Medicare, Income Tax, excise tax and all.

Of course we wouldn't agree to take that type of Tax Raise after such a beautiful tax cut, but that right there is the general federal issue. Tax Cuts that boost the deficit.

Also - keep in mind that debt servicing costs about $800 bln/year. One solution - default on the debt, and the budget is balanced.

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, race to the bottom for corporates, for the individual that isn't possible, that's why taxation of labor is so much easier than the taxation of profit.

Also possible for individuals - move out of high tax jurisdiction. In Miami area is full of individuals who made their fortune in NY and NJ, stashed it in corporate entities, and then move to FL to get it out of corporation onto their names in Florida. And these states constantly change their tax nexus laws chasing those individuals.

Dutchy wrote:

Oh absolutely, it is the government whom creates these loopholes, so it is up to them to resolve those. In the EU you see that different countries are played against each other for bidding for companies. Ireland has a low tax regime, thus Apple, Google and a number of other tech companies base their European HQ's in Ireland. The other side is that internationals take advantage of different tax regimes. Profit tax is quite flexible, Shell, for instance, hasn't paid any corporate tax in the Netherland for the past 10 odd years, while their profits are quite reasonable, on paper their profit is zero, so no tax.

For society at large, we put our brightest on a task to pay as little tax as possible. That is just crazy. Their brains should be used for something better.

Well - this happens not only among the EU countries, this is commonplace here between the states as well. And on global scale. Think of it as competition of jurisdictions. The one that puts less burden, while providing all required services, and high quality wins. The governments and "fair share" believers need to realize this, and understand that the way to win in this is to have compact, lean and efficient government, there is no allowance for unnecessary bureaucracy and oversizing. Then you can lower tax burdens across the board and it will not seem a problem at all.

Dieuwer wrote:

Instead of continuing in abstractisms, why does everybody not state his/her ideal tax system with brackets and all.
Also please state how you plan to enforce your system.

I am a believer in a flat rate income tax system. This is a powerful motivator for any legislator to keep spending under control, since then they know that even the high school kids in McDonalds will be affected by unnecessary spending. And will think harder before putting any regulations that lead to more expenditures, or expenditures themselves. I personally think the right federal tax rate would be 15-20% range. Not more.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Oh absolutely, it is the government whom creates these loopholes, so it is up to them to resolve those. In the EU you see that different countries are played against each other for bidding for companies. Ireland has a low tax regime, thus Apple, Google and a number of other tech companies base their European HQ's in Ireland. The other side is that internationals take advantage of different tax regimes. Profit tax is quite flexible, Shell, for instance, hasn't paid any corporate tax in the Netherland for the past 10 odd years, while their profits are quite reasonable, on paper their profit is zero, so no tax.

For society at large, we put our brightest on a task to pay as little tax as possible. That is just crazy. Their brains should be used for something better.

Well - this happens not only among the EU countries, this is commonplace here between the states as well. And on global scale. Think of it as competition of jurisdictions. The one that puts less burden, while providing all required services, and high quality wins. The governments and "fair share" believers need to realize this, and understand that the way to win in this is to have compact, lean and efficient government, there is no allowance for unnecessary bureaucracy and oversizing. Then you can lower tax burdens across the board and it will not seem a problem at all.

It's debatable if some of these tax heavens really provide "all required services". Usually they don't have a means to defend themselves, for starters.

anrec80 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Let's say we need to go with a balanced budget, and since Government never cuts spending,

We need to close the gap of 4.42 Trillion in spending from 3.42 Trillion in Revenue in 2019. To Raise 1 Trillion in extra Revenue would require an increase in the tax rates by about 30% across the board. Social Security, Medicare, Income Tax, excise tax and all.

Of course we wouldn't agree to take that type of Tax Raise after such a beautiful tax cut, but that right there is the general federal issue. Tax Cuts that boost the deficit.

Also - keep in mind that debt servicing costs about $800 bln/year. One solution - default on the debt, and the budget is balanced.

Actually right now, debt interest is only about 365 Billion. We can't "default" on the debt as it is our own. We could stop paying those that hold the debt, but then we wouldn't be paying many countries and citizens. That right there would undermine the dollar.

We could start by raising Social Security Taxes to cover the deficit there, or raise the minimum retirement age. We could also slowly raise taxes at a progressive rate over 10-20 years, while controlling spending , and then reverse it once the deficit is under control.

I thought FICA was a contribution that was held in trust for my retirement. Are you telling me it’s just another tax for Congress to spend? Horrors, oh the humanity.

The taxation required to balance the US budget has to hit the middle class because that’s where the money. UK marginal income tax rates are roughly double the US rates, then add in a 20% VAT on most purchases.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I thought FICA was a contribution that was held in trust for my retirement. Are you telling me it’s just another tax for Congress to spend? Horrors, oh the humanity.

The taxation required to balance the US budget has to hit the middle class because that’s where the money. UK marginal income tax rates are roughly double the US rates, then add in a 20% VAT on most purchases.

GF

FICA consists of Medicare tax and Social Security tax. Medicare - yes, this part is being spent. Social Security is supposed to go into trust fund, but Social Security Trust Fund has been replaced with Treasuries, and your payments go to pay today’s retirees Social Security benefits. Hence they are also being spent.