Get rid of the Income tax?

Annachie wrote:Peter, are you an econimic theorist/teacher?

I have a Master's Degree in Finance. There is some overlap in the two fields.

To make it reasonably fair, a sales tax only system should exclude basic necessities, like school supplies, food (not candy), clothing (have to figure a way to tax Gicci, Armani, Prada, etc.) and shelter.
So I think that everything else comes under luxury items. What's the US federal luxury tax baseline this year; no luxury tax?
It didn't work. Various reasons are given. But look at the legal working's between individuals and companies. It's not the pay, it's the perks.

I would get rid of welfare. I know of families that have been on welfare for three generations in the home town I grew up in. One family in particular is not disabled in anyway but they are lazy. They work the system able to get money from the government. They made more money than both my working parents. There is too much corruption and too little enforcement.... All liberals think of is how do we screw the rich and the middle class over so we can give money to people who will vote and keep them in office.

Welfare for corporations... well the USA is a two party system and any tax breaks that the corporations have obtained has been granted by both political parties.... I will give you a tax break if you donate money to my campaign...

You want to stop Corp Welfare... then hang the politicans who gave it to them... and the lawyers who helped them do it.

sorry for the rant.... but I spent 20 plus years in the military and some Senator or Congressman who spends one term in office gets a better retirement check than a military person who actually risks their life in the service of their country.

Corrupt politicans or liberal social engineers who think they know what is good for their fellow man should shell out his own money first, first, first, and only first before taking it from people who actually work for a living...

As for corporate perks... If I own a company (outright) or as a stockholder and I hire a CEO to run the company and that CEO creates more wealth for myself or my stockholders, sure I am going to give him a perk... I am not paying him or her to not make a profit... And what type of perk I or my stockholders grant him is no one else's business, not a liberal social engineer nor a politican. The last time I looked I thought the USA was a free country, but I could be wrong in that regards.

sorry for the rant....

Given that the original point was about Oz, I'll throw some Oz numbers up.

If every job that is currently available was filled, we'd still have 600,000 people looking for work and 900,000 people 'under worked'. Not counting those who haven't bothered registering for unemployment.
1.5 million people who have zero chance of earning a living.

But hey, lets cut welfare. Meanwhile all those tax breaks are still there for the rich to buy investment houses, simultaniously pricing the houses out of reach for large number of Australians and providing rental properties for them at rents that are actually almost as much or more than a morgage would be.

Senior chief, said CEO is all too often being paid to meet certain goals, and generally doesn't care how he meets them. Neither is the person who sets them.
This short sightedness can, and does, do huge damage to the big corps.

Which governments then have to bail out, wasting more tax dollars. (It's a waste because they shouldn't have to do it)

Peter, I thought so. Many of your posts reek of ivory tower rather than real world. (Mine probably reek of cynic. . )

As for me, I started as an apprentice, hit lower management on a 6 figure salary, redundancy, worked for a whole saler and also ran a shop. (Well, took over when my wife took ill). Now am on welfare as my wife got sicker. (Nothing termnal, just debilitating) and studying when I can. I've kinda seen a lot of it. (Wouldn't mind living at the top of the heap for a while, just for the contrast you understand. . )
Oh yes, started as a seasonal fruit picker while in high school. Now those guys could make some money especially as back then it was untaxed.

Senior Chief wrote: === SNIP ===
As for corporate perks... If I own a company (outright) or as a stockholder and I hire a CEO to run the company and that CEO creates more wealth for myself or my stockholders, sure I am going to give him a perk... I am not paying him or her to not make a profit... And what type of perk I or my stockholders grant him is no one else's business, not a liberal social engineer nor a politican. The last time I looked I thought the USA was a free country, but I could be wrong in that regards.

sorry for the rant....

If you look at tax history, you see the cause&effect that leads to unintended consequences and that is most evident with 'business perks' and now gets wrapped up with our new US health care. History starts off with income being taxed and business being able to take deductions for wages paid. After a bit, you find increasing taxable salary is unsatisfactory when the government taxes it at 90% (1940-1960s) so alternatives are looked at. Untaxed compensation, historically, has been a battle between the social-equity and capitalism crowds and given human ingenuity, a constantly changing battlefield.

Company paid health insurance, business lunches, use of company assets (airplanes & yachts) and a host of other items have all come under fire at one time or another. What that does, over time, is to lead to complexity piled upon complexity in the tax code. Add the bleed-over into the personal tax code and you have the current US Tax Code nightmare.

Charybdis wrote:

Senior Chief wrote: === SNIP ===
As for corporate perks... If I own a company (outright) or as a stockholder and I hire a CEO to run the company and that CEO creates more wealth for myself or my stockholders, sure I am going to give him a perk... I am not paying him or her to not make a profit... And what type of perk I or my stockholders grant him is no one else's business, not a liberal social engineer nor a politican. The last time I looked I thought the USA was a free country, but I could be wrong in that regards.

sorry for the rant....

If you look at tax history, you see the cause&effect that leads to unintended consequences and that is most evident with 'business perks' and now gets wrapped up with our new US health care. History starts off with income being taxed and business being able to take deductions for wages paid. After a bit, you find increasing taxable salary is unsatisfactory when the government taxes it at 90% (1940-1960s) so alternatives are looked at. Untaxed compensation, historically, has been a battle between the social-equity and capitalism crowds and given human ingenuity, a constantly changing battlefield.

Company paid health insurance, business lunches, use of company assets (airplanes & yachts) and a host of other items have all come under fire at one time or another. What that does, over time, is to lead to complexity piled upon complexity in the tax code. Add the bleed-over into the personal tax code and you have the current US Tax Code nightmare.

I agree that the US tax code is a nightmare but it was created by politicians. When I retired from the USN, I went back to school to a private University and got my BA and Masters in Accounting. Anyone pursuing a degree at this University in Accounting, Finance, or Economics was required to take four classes in in Business Ethics or you did not graduate. How many politicans even know how to spell Ethics? How about the perks given to our elected members of Congress... I am willing to bet that their untaxed compensation is never reported to the IRS or to the American Voter who if they heard about the freebies would vote the theives out of office more often. Just to bad that there is not a law that says two terms in the congress and your out and one term in the senate and your out.... Term limits are needed not matter if you are a honest statesman or a corrupt politican. President Lincoln said that the definition of an honest policitian is one that stays bought...

Happy holidays....

Senior Chief wrote:
I agree that the US tax code is a nightmare but it was created by politicians. When I retired from the USN, I went back to school to a private University and got my BA and Masters in Accounting. Anyone pursuing a degree at this University in Accounting, Finance, or Economics was required to take four classes in in Business Ethics or you did not graduate. How many politicans even know how to spell Ethics? How about the perks given to our elected members of Congress... I am willing to bet that their untaxed compensation is never reported to the IRS or to the American Voter who if they heard about the freebies would vote the theives out of office more often. Just to bad that there is not a law that says two terms in the congress and your out and one term in the senate and your out.... Term limits are needed not matter if you are a honest statesman or a corrupt politican. President Lincoln said that the definition of an honest policitian is one that stays bought...

Happy holidays....

Term limits for elected politicians will not solve all of the problems. What you could well end up with is the SL. What you end up doing is shifting the decision making from the elected members of Congress to their staffs, and the unelected bureaucrats. What is really need is term limits on how long you can be in a government job - either as a Congressional staff member, or as a bureaucrat. Something like ten or twelve years max, and then out - forever.

I might point out that politicians are just as good at "gaming the system" as anyone else. California voters tried to reign in spending with Prop 13 decades ago, and instead got deficit spending up the hoop. They have enacted term limits for Ca Politicians, who simply move into various government "commissions" and other agencies after they run out of terms (Ca has over 500 named commissions and agencies, so there are plenty of places for them to go).

While California may be one of the more egregious examples, I can just as easily point to my home Province of Ontario, so this isn't limited to a particular place or time....

Thucydides wrote:I might point out that politicians are just as good at "gaming the system" as anyone else. California voters tried to reign in spending with Prop 13 decades ago, and instead got deficit spending up the hoop. They have enacted term limits for Ca Politicians, who simply move into various government "commissions" and other agencies after they run out of terms (Ca has over 500 named commissions and agencies, so there are plenty of places for them to go).

While California may be one of the more egregious examples, I can just as easily point to my home Province of Ontario, so this isn't limited to a particular place or time....

Which is why I slapped a 10-12 year total government service limit on them - elected and non elected - they are going to have to go out and earn an honest living at some point, as an attempt to vote themselves life time pensions for 10 years of service is going to get overturned by the next set of electees.