Tax reform

Pete

Repete
So I am a middle of the road republican. I do not think the term "Tax Reform" is good. It means reforming the way taxes are collected to make it more efficient. I want government reform where the spending they do on governance and the products I see from my government is better.

See I understand that taxation is a way the government funds projects and services for the greater good of our society. I get that and it is needed. However I want them to reform what they are doing to make it better, cut out things that suck and are ineffective then pass the savings on to me.

It is not good enough in my mind to cut taxes yet carry the same level of expenses. Yea yea I get the concept and believe that stimulating the economy via tax reduction actually means increased revenue but that does have a limit. I want them to do both, cut the amount of revenue needed to fund governmental services and products, and then make a reduction to my bill for my share of the products.

I would also like to see the federal government scale back the intrusion into the states and allow the states to manage most of the governmental services and products. Why? Because I, we, you can influence our state and local legislatures to be better in tune with our needs. I have no problem with the federal government cutting rates WAY back to 5, 10 and 15% and let the individual states raise their tax rates to take up the slack.

That's pretty much it.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
So I am a middle of the road republican. I do not think the term "Tax Reform" is good. It means reforming the way taxes are collected to make it more efficient. I want government reform where the spending they do on governance and the products I see from my government is better.

See I understand that taxation is a way the government funds projects and services for the greater good of our society. I get that and it is needed. However I want them to reform what they are doing to make it better, cut out things that suck and are ineffective then pass the savings on to me.

It is not good enough in my mind to cut taxes yet carry the same level of expenses. Yea yea I get the concept and believe that stimulating the economy via tax reduction actually means increased revenue but that does have a limit. I want them to do both, cut the amount of revenue needed to fund governmental services and products, and then make a reduction to my bill for my share of the products.

I would also like to see the federal government scale back the intrusion into the states and allow the states to manage most of the governmental services and products. Why? Because I, we, you can influence our state and local legislatures to be better in tune with our needs. I have no problem with the federal government cutting rates WAY back to 5, 10 and 15% and let the individual states raise their tax rates to take up the slack.

That's pretty much it.

I agree with most of what you have said with a few exceptions. We need intra state agencies and federal government to oversee the coordination of many things, Let's take the Bay for instance. Instead of having states regulate things on a local level I believe it is more effective to do it at a federal level. It would avoid redundancies. It would also keep one state like Virginia being at the mercy of a state like delaware to regulate pollution, fertilizer use and the like. To effectively regulate and clean the bay we need someone to coordinate the work of many different states. Unfortunately there are many such issues that involve multiple states throughout the country. The you get into, military spending and federal spending and I don't think there is any way you are going to get the government to agree to give up what it has gotten used to collecting.

I also don't believe there is any proof that tricks down economics work for anyone except CEO's. They continue to be paid astronomical sums based on the profits from their business and I believe a large part of those savings would go to them instead of expanding workforces and new hires and new business.
 

Pete

Repete
I agree with most of what you have said with a few exceptions. We need intra state agencies and federal government to oversee the coordination of many things, Let's take the Bay for instance. Instead of having states regulate things on a local level I believe it is more effective to do it at a federal level. It would avoid redundancies. It would also keep one state like Virginia being at the mercy of a state like delaware to regulate pollution, fertilizer use and the like. To effectively regulate and clean the bay we need someone to coordinate the work of many different states. Unfortunately there are many such issues that involve multiple states throughout the country. The you get into, military spending and federal spending and I don't think there is any way you are going to get the government to agree to give up what it has gotten used to collecting.

I also don't believe there is any proof that tricks down economics work for anyone except CEO's. They continue to be paid astronomical sums based on the profits from their business and I believe a large part of those savings would go to them instead of expanding workforces and new hires and new business.
You did see "scale back" versus "eliminate" right? Of course there are issues that are best addressed at a national level. With regard to the environment set federal guidelines and let the states meet them. If one state feels victimized by the actions of another there are courts and precedent. Florida v. Georgia with water rights and so on. But the practice of "harvesting" tax revenue at a high rate then parsing it back to the states is a poor practice. If Mississippi roads suck let Mississippi handle it without it being subsidized by Delaware tax payers. Same for schools and other projects. If the cost of Mississippi Schools is born by the residents of Mississippi alone they will get very interested in how it is used. Right now we have a culture that looses the identity of money. It's not my money, its not your money, its government money. Government money doesn't come form anywhere, its free, it is flowing and it is inexhaustible. The moment money is withheld form our checks it loses its identity as "my money".

Trickle down economic does work. There are examples of increased revenue through growth throughout our time. Unfortunately once one of these period gets going some jackass comes in and regulated it down to stagnation.

Your statement about the congress not wanting to give up federal spending is right. You do know that Chuck Schummer and Maxine Waters know more about what is good for us than anyone else right? Gas cans with self venting and self venting spouts. Federal guidelines for school lunches is another. The state legislature in Idaho is a bunch of barbaric #######s who absolutely MUST defer to the grand wisdom of a congress when it comes to nutrition.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I also don't believe there is any proof that tricks down economics work for anyone except CEO's.

that has been PROVEN SINCE the 80s

They continue to be paid astronomical sums based on the profits from their business and I believe a large part of those savings would go to them instead of expanding work forces and new hires and new business.

what expansion, what businesses :shrug:

Why do you think more JOBS are available just because a CEO gets a 50 million dollar stock bonus
- or are you suggesting the likes of Microsoft / Google / Exxon / State Farm pay people to sit around and do nothing all day

Jealous is an UGLY thing .... you should not be envious of someone who does better than you, demanding GOV make life 'FAIR', Instead TRY Work Harder
 

Starman

New Member
I also don't believe there is any proof that tricks down economics work for anyone except CEO's. They continue to be paid astronomical sums based on the profits from their business and I believe a large part of those savings would go to them instead of expanding workforces and new hires and new business.

The term "trickle-down" has been poisoned. There is nothing bad about it. "Trickle-down" isn't really a government strategy or whatever, it's just the basic building block of a market-based economy.

I have money, but I need some meat to feed my family. So I visit my farmer, who raises several hundred head of cattle. I trade some of my money for a side of beef. Now in theory, that money I gave him is more than it cost the farmer to bring that cow to market. So with that "profit", he is able to buy feed, for example. Perhaps that feed might come from an adjacent farmer, who again brings that feed to market for more than it cost him to produce it. He take his profit and buys seed for the next year. And so on and so on.

That is "trickle-down" economics that I've just described. But it's the way it's been done for millennia. Long ago, it might have been wampum traded for animal pelts based on a voluntary, mutually-beneficial transaction.

"Trickle-down" is just another in a long line of ideas that has been turned into a pejorative by people who don't understand it.

If a CEO shouldn't be paid based on the profits he generates, what then should be the basis for his compensation? Just because a CEO is paid an "astronomical sum" doesn't mean there's no money left for expanding the workforce. Furthermore, businesses don't just expand their workforce on a whim. They expand when there is more demand for their product(s) than the current workforce will be able to accommodate.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Furthermore, businesses don't just expand their workforce on a whim. They expand when there is more demand for their product(s) than the current workforce will be able to accommodate.



Sappy Believes Businesses Should Be An Expansion Of GOV Welfare ..... aka Socialism


Franking I don't see Zuckerberg hiring 1000's of Extra Employees :shrug: didn't he sell 5 billion dollars in Stock and is building a 700 million dollar compound in Hawaii

Bezos ?? he just sold a billion dollars in Stock :shrug:
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I also don't believe there is any proof that tricks down economics work for anyone except CEO's. They continue to be paid astronomical sums based on the profits from their business and I believe a large part of those savings would go to them instead of expanding workforces and new hires and new business.

More proof ^ that you've never owned a business in your life. Or even had a hand in operating one.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
what expansion, what businesses :shrug:

Why do you think more JOBS are available just because a CEO gets a 50 million dollar stock bonus
- or are you suggesting the likes of Microsoft / Google / Exxon / State Farm pay people to sit around and do nothing all day

Jealous is an UGLY thing .... you should not be envious of someone who does better than you, demanding GOV make life 'FAIR', Instead TRY Work Harder

I said no such thing. I said that when businesses are given incentives in the form of tax breaks those are not passed along to the workers. They re taking up by the CEO"S by and large and little if any winds up in the pockets of employees.


Stop you ad hominem attacks based on your perception of my life. I bet I know a thing or two more than you and am not constantly crying about raising insurance rates and taxes. I am certainly not jealous of you and your situation
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
The term "trickle-down" has been poisoned. There is nothing bad about it. "Trickle-down" isn't really a government strategy or whatever, it's just the basic building block of a market-based economy.

I have money, but I need some meat to feed my family. So I visit my farmer, who raises several hundred head of cattle. I trade some of my money for a side of beef. Now in theory, that money I gave him is more than it cost the farmer to bring that cow to market. So with that "profit", he is able to buy feed, for example. Perhaps that feed might come from an adjacent farmer, who again brings that feed to market for more than it cost him to produce it. He take his profit and buys seed for the next year. And so on and so on.

That is "trickle-down" economics that I've just described. But it's the way it's been done for millennia. Long ago, it might have been wampum traded for animal pelts based on a voluntary, mutually-beneficial transaction.

"Trickle-down" is just another in a long line of ideas that has been turned into a pejorative by people who don't understand it.

If a CEO shouldn't be paid based on the profits he generates, what then should be the basis for his compensation? Just because a CEO is paid an "astronomical sum" doesn't mean there's no money left for expanding the workforce. Furthermore, businesses don't just expand their workforce on a whim. They expand when there is more demand for their product(s) than the current workforce will be able to accommodate.



Yes but in your example if you are getting a reduced tax rate and you therefore have an additional X dollars a month you aren't going to buy twice as much meat to feed your family.


What you describe above is economics. The trickle down part is where republicans try to convince people they will benefit from corporate tax cuts by buying twice as much meat and stimulating the economy which is unproven
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Yes but in your example if you are getting a reduced tax rate and you therefore have an additional X dollars a month you aren't going to buy twice as much meat to feed your family.

So you're saying if he doesn't spend it he has too much and the government should take it and give it to somebody else?

Where have I heard that before... Oh... From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I bet I know a thing or two more than you ....

:lol:

your posts and attitude towards Obamacare belie all is needed to know about little sappy

and am not constantly crying about raising insurance rates and taxes.

yes we know, you are a hard core communist willing to give up all you work for - to assuage your white liberal guilt - tell me are you sorry you were born

I am certainly not jealous of you and your situation

:killingme


you must be, otherwise WHY mention it .....
 

Starman

New Member
Yes but in your example if you are getting a reduced tax rate and you therefore have an additional X dollars a month you aren't going to buy twice as much meat to feed your family.


What you describe above is economics. The trickle down part is where republicans try to convince people they will benefit from corporate tax cuts by buying twice as much meat and stimulating the economy which is unproven

I think the more money that one has earned that he can keep and do with as they wish is a good thing. I don't know where this idea comes from that the government has right of first refusal on money we earn.

Your comments also imply there is a "correct" level of taxation. Want to start by telling me what that is?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The trickle down part is where republicans try to convince people they will benefit from corporate tax cuts .....



still wait on your excuses why Bezo's and Zuckerberg aren't hiring 1000's or Additional Employees with all the cash they have

Soros ?
Buffet ? Berkshire Hawthay is worth billions

Michael Moore - hired the cheapest SCAB Employees to make his files and treated them like crap



come on :shortbus: put up or shut up .....

why is ANY Progressive so RICH if they believe in helping EVERYONE
 
Last edited:

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Yes but in your example if you are getting a reduced tax rate and you therefore have an additional X dollars a month you aren't going to buy twice as much meat to feed your family.

Of course not, Mo. You are being silly. The money could/would go toward a vacation home...a nice boat..a collector car...an expensive vacation...a private plane....a larger mansion...and so on. And in every single case, that money spend helps to create and/or maintain jobs for people.

But the point is largely moot; the wealthiest are not going be seeing much if any tax reduction if the current proposal passes. About the only really significant beneficiary will be "C" corporations, but I'm fine with that.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Of course not, Mo. You are being silly. The money could/would go toward a vacation home...a nice boat..a collector car...an expensive vacation...a private plane....a larger mansion...and so on. And in every single case, that money spend helps to create and/or maintain jobs for people.

But the point is largely moot; the wealthiest are not going be seeing much if any tax reduction if the current proposal passes. About the only really significant beneficiary will be "C" corporations, but I'm fine with that.

The Senate plan is kicking the corporate tax rate reductions down the road.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I think the more money that one has earned that he can keep and do with as they wish is a good thing. I don't know where this idea comes from that the government has right of first refusal on money we earn.

Your comments also imply there is a "correct" level of taxation. Want to start by telling me what that is?

I’ve never said anything of the sort. I’ve simply pointed out trickle down economics doesn’t work because you give businesses a break doesn’t mean the workers will see the benefit. Or spend a benefit if the do receive it
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I’ve never said anything of the sort. I’ve simply pointed out trickle down economics doesn’t work because you give businesses a break doesn’t mean the workers will see the benefit. Or spend a benefit if the do receive it

Except that it always has worked. Just fine.

Except for that, you mean.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Prove it. Liar.

I don't have to "prove" it. I see it working every single day. When you own and operate businesses, the mechanisms and consequences are as plain as the nose on your face.

Not that you'd have any reason to understand any of that. You've never been there. Loser.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Some general thougths

So I am a middle of the road republican. I do not think the term "Tax Reform" is good. It means reforming the way taxes are collected to make it more efficient. I want government reform where the spending they do on governance and the products I see from my government is better.

You are correct in that those who call the current proposals "reform" are incorrect. "Reform" should involve wholesale changes in tax policy should be revenue neutral. When the tax codes is being reformed in a period of economic expansion, tax revenue should be increased in order to build a reserve for when the economy is in recession.

A complete fiscal overhaul would be wonderful. Reform the entitlement programs...get revenue and spending in line.

See I understand that taxation is a way the government funds projects and services for the greater good of our society. I get that and it is needed. However I want them to reform what they are doing to make it better, cut out things that suck and are ineffective then pass the savings on to me.

Nice thought...exceeding naïve. To accomplish this goal we would need to eliminate gerrymandering, eliminate money in politics, eliminate the revolving door lobbyists, etc etc. All worthy goals though.

It is not good enough in my mind to cut taxes yet carry the same level of expenses.

And it shouldn't be...the current trajectory of our annual deficits is scary. But our incompetent President and the bought and paid for House/Senate are going to make that worse.

Yea yea I get the concept and believe that stimulating the economy via tax reduction actually means increased revenue but that does have a limit.

That theory just doesn't hold water at the current levels of taxation. (been explained too many times). Additionally, the current proposals really wouldn't do much to stimulate economic activity. Cutting the tax rates of huge multinational corps will do little for their workers. What the Republicans in the House and Senate (and those from Fox, Breitbart and the like) always fail to mention is that a company has no loyalty or obligation to its employees. A corp act in the best interest of itself and its owners (shareholders). So give large multinationals a huge tax break...are they going to raise wages? No...they are going to implement share buyback programs or increase dividend payments. Joe Sixpack won't see a pay raise.



I want them to do both, cut the amount of revenue needed to fund governmental services and products, and then make a reduction to my bill for my share of the products.

Agreed...but understand that the fiscal year that just ended had a $660B deficit. Budgets are running about $4T. To get to your goal, we first have to cut spending by more than 15% just to balance. In good times we should be running a surplus. Go ahead and look at where how the federal budget is spent. Look at the actual expenditures and determine what should be cut that gets us to $660B...that's this year. Deficits (without this silly tax cut proposal) will be over $1T in a few years.

I would also like to see the federal government scale back the intrusion into the states and allow the states to manage most of the governmental services and products. Why? Because I, we, you can influence our state and local legislatures to be better in tune with our needs.

And, you also have significant issues with non standardized services on everything from education to food safety.

I have no problem with the federal government cutting rates WAY back to 5, 10 and 15% and let the individual states raise their tax rates to take up the slack.

Unless you live in Mississippi or one of the poor states that do not have the tax base to support significant cuts in federal dollars.

That's pretty much it.

Your post is a lot of wishful thinking. It has some good points and some idealistic ones. Unfortunately, it fails the reality test of a country that is as economically diverse as the US.
 
Top