which tax is fairest?

[billvon 2,998]

>That assumes that every citizen gets equal benefit from the government, which
>is not the case.

Correct. Indeed, one could argue that the poorest of US citizens get the most from the government. However, all citizens have an equal OPPORTUNITY to avail themselves of those services, so it's a fair argument that they should all pay the same.

That, of course, is completely unworkable in a practical sense, which is why we have a progressive tax system.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Inheritance tax is the reason so many 'family owned' farms and ranches in this country are being sold-off. The kids inherit the family farm or ranch and find no way out but to sell it to pay the taxes.


Chuck

To be fair, other reasons for this include the farm/ranch being left to multiple kids, who sell it off to divide the inheritance, and also kids selling off inherited farms/ranches because they don't want all of the work and responsibility associated with owning the farm/ranch.

If it were only due to the taxes, we would more likely see the farms being downsized, kids selling just enough land to cover the tax and keeping the rest.

IIRC, there is a rather large amount that can be inherited before the inheritance tax kicks in, which effectively eliminates the tax for most inheritances.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

In my side business (skydiving school), I pay B&O tax on 100% of gross receipts. The money that I pass on to contractors is also subject to B&O tax on their gross, as well as income tax on their net. There is most certainly double-taxation going on with taxes being charged for transactions that only include money being transferred from one individual/entity to another.

I can't say that I would consider B&O to be a fair tax structure. Two businesses could produce the same net income, but one could have four times as much gross revenue, meaning they are effectively taxed at four times the rate (assuming the state taxes both at the same B&O rate).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AdamLanes 1]

This poll is like asking someone how they would like to be murdered. How about the option to not be murdered?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>That assumes that every citizen gets equal benefit from the government, which
>is not the case.

Indeed, one could argue that the poorest of US citizens get the most from the government.

One could argue the other way, as well.

For example, schools in wealthier areas tend to have better facilities and resources available for students than schools in poorer areas.

Wealthier neighborhoods tend to receive superior police protection than poorer neighborhoods.

Compared to a poor person, a rich person is more likely to have access to lawmakers and government administrators, which offers more opportunity to influence their decision making.

Defense spending, in theory, provides asset protection for the nation's citizens. The rich own a far greater proportion of the nation's assets than the poor, thus receive a much greater benefit from such government spending.

More generally, the government's protection of property rights benefits richer citizens more than poorer citizens, as the richer citizens have more property.

Tax credits (as opposed to deductions) essentially turn goods and services purchased by individuals into government benefits. Deductable credits benefit the rich and poor equally. Non-deductable credits benefit wealthier taxpayers more than poorer taxpayers. Likewise, partial tax credits (e.g. 50% tax credits) offer government benefit only to those who have financial ability to cover the other 50% themselves, an ability that increases with income.

I recognize that poor people do have access to some need based government services and benefits that rich people must pay for on their own. I suspect, if one analyzed the relative value of government services received by the rich compared to the poor, the rich would come out ahead. Keep in mind, I'm referring to the value of benefits, not merely the cost.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[quade 4]

Quote

This poll is like asking someone how they would like to be murdered. How about the option to not be murdered?

Great.

When your house catches fire, the fire station won't respond.
When there is an invasion, the military won't protect you.
When you want to go somewhere you won't have roads.

NO taxes is not an option.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,998]

>For example, schools in wealthier areas tend to have better facilities and
>resources available for students than schools in poorer areas.

True - but wealthier families choose private schools more often as well.

>Wealthier neighborhoods tend to receive superior police protection than
>poorer neighborhoods.

Again true - but poorer areas require more police oversight, in general.

>Compared to a poor person, a rich person is more likely to have access
>to lawmakers and government administrators, which offers more opportunity to
>influence their decision making.

If you mean "rich people can more easily donate to campaigns/bribe politicians" then I agree. But again, that's an avenue available to everyone.

I agree that in some areas, the rich have more influence over government. But in terms of monetary value, the poor get more than 'their share' of services. (Since we are talking about monetary tax numbers, it seems fair to compare them to monetary benefits.)

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Obama may want the US to turn more socialist. That's not what Muenkel said. The idea I think is ludicrous is that he is actively sabotaging the country. If you've gone so far off the reservation that you think the President is trying to destroy America to increase his ability to remake it in a communist mold, then there is really no point in talking to you.

Obama has spent exponentially more money in less than 2 months in office than any president has ever done in the history of this nation. If this is not sabotaging the nation, then he's just plain stupid. I know, very hard to believe BO to be stupid.

To be honest, I was being overly dramatic primarily to make a point. He does have an agenda and I don't believe it is in the best interest of the U.S.A..

_________________________________________
Chris

[DanG 1]

Quote

If this is not sabotaging the nation, then he's just plain stupid.

Just because you don't agree with his plan doesn't make it either sabotage or stupid. I know that SC is a black and white corner of the universe, but there actually is grey out there.

I don't agree with all of the spending either. I don't, however, think that the only two choices available are that the President is a commie or a moron. The world is not binary, you should explore other possibilities.

Obama seems to believe in a larger role for government with regards to social spending than I like, but I happen to agree with him on other issues that are just as important, if not more so. For instance his belief in the rule of law and the importance of balanced diplomacy. Your milage may vary, but that's the great thing about America, you can say what you want and vote how you want. I personally think those rights will be stronger under Obama than the alternative, and that's more important to me than if the top tax bracket pays 39% (acceptable) or 42% (communism).

- Dan G

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Obama may want the US to turn more socialist. That's not what Muenkel said. The idea I think is ludicrous is that he is actively sabotaging the country. If you've gone so far off the reservation that you think the President is trying to destroy America to increase his ability to remake it in a communist mold, then there is really no point in talking to you.

Obama has spent exponentially more money in less than 2 months in office than any president has ever done in the history of this nation. If this is not sabotaging the nation, then he's just plain stupid. I know, very hard to believe BO to be stupid.

To be honest, I was being overly dramatic primarily to make a point. He does have an agenda and I don't believe it is in the best interest of the U.S.A..

I guess that is what happens when some scumbag GOP president with a crusader complex... goes on a rampage in the Federal Treasury for 8 years.

I bet all those dollars transferred to all those FRIENDS of W over the last 8 years helped set up a bunch of them for life.... too bad you didn't get in on the rape of the Treasury.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

True - but wealthier families choose private schools more often as well.

Wealthier families are also more likely to benefit more from everyone having access to education, as it reduces the cost of an educated labor force.

Quote

Again true - but poorer areas require more police oversight, in general.

True, but that doesn't give the poorer neighborhoods more benefit, it just means that the cost of providing benefit is a function of more than just the area of coverage.

Quote

If you mean "rich people can more easily donate to campaigns/bribe politicians" then I agree. But again, that's an avenue available to everyone.

Who is more likely to be able to get an appointment to have lunch with the President (or the governor, mayor, etc.), Warren Buffett or the guy working two full-time jobs and still barely scraping by at poverty level?

When one considers who benefits most and least by free trade agreements that have effectively encouraged moving jobs out of the country, contributing to the widening gap between the income of the richest and poorest of our country, we can see that the additional influence of the rich on government can actually provide negative benefit to the poor.

Quote

I agree that in some areas, the rich have more influence over government. But in terms of monetary value, the poor get more than 'their share' of services. (Since we are talking about monetary tax numbers, it seems fair to compare them to monetary benefits.)

I don't think they do get more than their share, generally speaking.

One could argue that some people pay no income tax, so any benefit is more than their share. However, that occurs at both ends of the spectrum, with corporations utilizing loopholes in the tax code to keep their profits from being recognized as such by the IRS, sometimes to the extent that the shareholders can avoid taxes on the income.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Obama has spent exponentially more money in less than 2 months in office than any president has ever done in the history of this nation.

Do you understand what exponentially means, or are you just trying to make your post sound more sensationalist?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Inheritance tax is the reason so many 'family owned' farms and ranches in this country are being sold-off. The kids inherit the family farm or ranch and find no way out but to sell it to pay the taxes.


Chuck

Oh dear.

You know the dollar amount at which inheritance tax kicks in, right?

It's not as if the government is taking money from starving widows and orphans.

It's high enough that family farms and ranches have to be sold to pay the taxes. What does that tell you? You do like to eat, don't you? I'm seeing enough of it in my area.


Chuck


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Inheritance tax is the reason so many 'family owned' farms and ranches in this country are being sold-off. The kids inherit the family farm or ranch and find no way out but to sell it to pay the taxes.


Chuck

To be fair, other reasons for this include the farm/ranch being left to multiple kids, who sell it off to divide the inheritance, and also kids selling off inherited farms/ranches because they don't want all of the work and responsibility associated with owning the farm/ranch.

If it were only due to the taxes, we would more likely see the farms being downsized, kids selling just enough land to cover the tax and keeping the rest.

IIRC, there is a rather large amount that can be inherited before the inheritance tax kicks in, which effectively eliminates the tax for most inheritances.

You are right there, about most of the kids wanting to sell it off and make a bundle. Then too, there's some kids who like that life-style and the work involved and aren't just after a big piece of change as a result of their parents blood, sweat & tears.
I still think that the inheritance tax does more harm than good.


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I still think that the inheritance tax does more harm than good.

I would be inclined to agree, except for the fact that the inheritance has to be multi-million dollar valued before it is subject to the estate tax. It simply doesn't affect most folks.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I still think that the inheritance tax does more harm than good.

I would be inclined to agree, except for the fact that the inheritance has to be multi-million dollar valued before it is subject to the estate tax. It simply doesn't affect most folks.

I was talking about farmers and ranchers. Some ranchers own anywhere from 20,000 acres on up. I know a local rancher whose daddy passed away and after the taxes and brothers and sisters, he wound-up with just barely 7,000 acres. Ranch land can go as high as $5,000 an acre or more, to the right buyer. There is a big 'movement' to do away with the inheritance tax.


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I was talking about farmers and ranchers. Some ranchers own anywhere from 20,000 acres on up. I know a local rancher whose daddy passed away and after the taxes and brothers and sisters, he wound-up with just barely 7,000 acres. Ranch land can go as high as $5,000 an acre or more, to the right buyer. There is a big 'movement' to do away with the inheritance tax.

Fair enough. Where I'm from, family owned farms are rarely so large.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I know a local rancher whose daddy passed away and after the taxes and brothers and sisters, he wound-up with just barely 7,000 acres.

how old was this rancher when he got 7,000 unearned acres?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I was talking about farmers and ranchers. Some ranchers own anywhere from 20,000 acres on up. I know a local rancher whose daddy passed away and after the taxes and brothers and sisters, he wound-up with just barely 7,000 acres. Ranch land can go as high as $5,000 an acre or more, to the right buyer. There is a big 'movement' to do away with the inheritance tax.

Fair enough. Where I'm from, family owned farms are rarely so large.

In my area, it takes about 40-acres to graze one cow! We only get rain a few days a year and it's tough. It's really sad to see these ranches having to be sold-off. Especially, when one member of the family wants to carry on the 'business' and can't. The banks don't seem to be loaning money, either!


Chuck

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

It's really sad to see these ranches having to be sold-off.

why is it sad?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Great.

When your house catches fire, the fire station won't respond.
When there is an invasion, the military won't protect you.
When you want to go somewhere you won't have roads.

NO taxes is not an option.

Yes, Quade, because in the absence of government those things would cease to exist

[billvon 2,998]

>Yes, Quade, because in the absence of government those things would cease to exist

In many places - yes, they would.

The libertarian fantasy that "everyone will just voluntarily chip in and buy a new aircraft carrier!" is just that - a fantasy. There's a reason that "providing for a common defense" is in the US constitution - because if you leave it to chance (or to voluntary contribution) it doesn't happen.

[AdamLanes 1]

So then how do you explain all the things that exist that aren't provided for by the government?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

So then how do you explain all the things that exist that aren't provided for by the government?

such as?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DanG 1]

Quote

So then how do you explain all the things that exist that aren't provided for by the government?

Like what? There are lots of things that exist because they make short-term economic sense. I'm sure you can point to examples of things that are traditionally done by government like roads, police, scientific research, etc. that are being done by the private sector. That doesn't mean that there is no place for government.

Do you really want to have law enforcement, military action, food safety, and air traffic regulation done by for-profit corporations? If so, you are living in a fantasy world.

- Dan G