Victorian Slum House | PBS
Watch Victorian Slum House videos on demand. Stream full episodes online.
They are just paid shills for big business.
a friend described the bosses here as âkids crying for candyâ thought it was pretty fitting!
I think itâs wonderful that Trump is lowering the business rate to 15%. The higher 35% rate is the reason so many big companies were keeping profits overseas; in the near future, they will be repatriating that money back home. The situation has gotten so bizarre, that Europe was ahead of Obamaâs America in business tax relief and competition, which is rare in history.
I wish the highest individual tax were lowered more. It is 39.5% under Obama, 35% under Bush. Reagan took it down to 28% (from Carterâs 70%).
I almost set up an S corporation in 1997 under the umbrella of which I could have executed all my flurry of stock activity back then. It would have been set up in Nevada (even though never been there) as they donât have state taxes along with Delaware (in order to successfully attract capital to their state). Iâm glad to see that my state, Kansas, has followed suit now.
Why you ask? What do you think of it? In my opinion, this is just peanuts. Iâm still more worried about low interest rates. Iâm afraid all the great things Trump is doing might be overshadowed by distortions in the macroeconomy. That needs to be fixed pronto.
The whole âevery human interaction is commerceâ axiom, of course. If you follow it to its logical conclusions, why have a separate corporate tax rate at all? And so on.
(I suppose I should ask @finley too, if he hasnât been put out of service by dishonorable practices yet.)
Actually, Iâm all for the flat tax. Moreover, I would love if we could go back to the genius of our forefathers who didnât allow for income tax in the Constitution, and so they tried to introduce it through the 16th amendment in 1913, (friggin Democrats).
I would be fine repealing that amendment (and the 17th too!) and federal revenue were collected by tariffs and duties collected only when you buy something, similar to a VAT.
Thatâs why I strongly supported candidate Rick Perry for president, because he wanted to repeal amendments 16 and 17.
Did you ever think about finding the nearest fog bound mountaintop and shaking your fist in the air âŚif so may I be so kind to recommend this therapy which will have the added benefit of saving valuable forum space.
Ps
Some random shrieks and roars of 'âdamn democratsââŚâTaxation-SmaxationââŚâObama-RamaââŚâTrump why have you forsaken meâ and âItâs all been downhill since 1853â will have added effect and energize the soul
The problem with that is that it all hinges on the definition of the word âbuyâ. If I can wheel out my favourite example of how not to run an economy, ie., the Philippines (seriously, Iâm starting to wonder if the country is some sort of economic experiment being run by the UN), they have a flat tax of 3% imposed on all transactions. The problem with this is twofold:
(a) it causes an immense amount of accounting headache, especially since itâs basically illegal to use accounting software in that benighted hellhole, and
(b) the tax authorities have above-and-beyond-the-law jurisdiction to decide what is and is not a transaction, and to fuck with your business model to ensure that as many âtransactionsâ as possible will occur. If your opinion doesnât concur with theirs (which is undocumented), theyâll hit you with massive fines.
In theory, barter is also taxable, as a consequence of (b).
Itâs actually far simpler for all concerned to just tax profits, as most normal countries do. The downside (for the revenue) is that everyone will naturally aim to minimize declared profits. And why not?
I completely agree, though, that keeping tax rates reasonable - 15% is plenty high enough - is likely to produce all the revenue the country needs, while encouraging people to actually pay their taxes; point being, itâs probably more trouble than itâs worth to pay expensive accountants and lawyers to work around a modest 15% slice. Less work for accountants and lawyers of course, but I guess thatâs another plus.
I still maintain that the most efficient form of taxation would be an entirely voluntary one, with incentives for those who pay the âsuggestedâ amount. In most endeavours, carrots work far better than sticks.
Iâm not sure what youâre referring to. Maybe Iâm not clear what a VAT is as we donât have that for federal income, but just for state income.
What I mean is just a simple tax on merchandise that everyone buys, such as clothing, food, whatever. Is that what you mean? Therefore, your tax would be as big as your spending habit. So poor people who spend less would pay less. And people could control how much tax they pay, if they want to save, by not buying those things that have a tax.
It sounds simple when youâre talking about consumers buying things, but it all turns to crap when youâre talking about businesses buying (and selling) things.
Hereâs a real-world example. An accountant rents a small office. Instead of paying rent to the landlord - who has many properties and therefore a complex business - he offers to provide accounting services.
How would you charge VAT on that âtransactionâ? And is it fair to do so?
The crux of the problem is that the magnitude of a transaction often has little bearing on the profit derived from it. Some enormous transactions have tiny profit margins, fractions of a percent. Some small transactions have 50% or 100% markups. It isnât reasonable to levy a tax on the basis of the value of the transaction, which is what VAT is.
But if all human interaction is commerce, as you guys said, why is it unreasonable, and why do so-called businesses (which are really just humans in disguise) turn everything to crap?
Ah, so you donât agree with the Donald on everything.
Iâll assume here youâre asking a serious question, as opposed to just taking the piss.
I already answered the first point with examples. VAT collection is:
(a) incredibly onerous, if everyone has to report every piddling transaction instead of simply giving the gubmint a summary of their annual profits and a ballpark guess as to tax payable, as happens in more business-friendly countries.
(b) likely to result in abuses of power if tax authorities are allowed - indeed expected - to skim off the top of absolutely every conceivable interaction; if I give my neighbour a basket of apples, I donât really want men with clipboards descending on me saying ooooh, we reckon that was worth $5, of which $1 is ours; hand it over!
(c) arbitrary, because (as I already said) the tax take has no relation whatever to the benefits gained by the transacting parties. If I sell a car for less money than I paid for it, why should the government add insult to injury by taking 20% of what little cash Iâm left with?
Businesses donât turn everything to crap. Attempting to levy VAT (or a transaction tax, or whatever you want to call it) does that. It just results in a yuuuge waste of manpower, resentment, and unintentional economic distortion.
Oh, I get what youâre saying. yes, we do have a court case against situations like you mentioned, providing service for rent. Personally, I think it should be valid.
As for businesses, it would become part of the cost of expenses. Itâs like weighing the consequences, the tax would be imposed on consumption instead of on the profits (or personal income in the individualâs case).
But the thing about it, it wouldnât require documentation, there wouldnât need to be tax returns and deadlines, could eliminate the IRS in one fell swoop, just like that.
I donât know that he is against a flat tax, it is much more revolutionary that what he proposes, but even that is revolutionary, at least for the corporate tax reduction to 15%. Heâs going in the right direction.
Ted Cruz had suggested a flat tax of 10% for individuals and 16% for businesses.
The taxes and spending are too damned high. Thatâs the problem. Transactions involving the government are out of control.
Whatâs needed is Constitutional limits. Any tax rate above a certain rate forbidden by Constitution. Any government debt ratio above a certain point unconstitutional, except in a legitimate declared public emergency. Let them figure out how to work within these limits. Iâm sure thatâll be fine. What they need is the limits. Discipline imposed from without.
But no such amendment will get on the ballot with our current crowd on Capitol Hill. That toilet bowl needs to be flushed.
What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. Labor reform. In Taiwan, if Iâm not mistaken. The trouble with staying on topic is sometimes everythingâs connected to everything else.
[quote=âjotham, post:153, topic:158317, full:trueâ]But the thing about it, it wouldnât require documentation, there wouldnât need to be tax returns and deadlines, could eliminate the IRS in one fell swoop, just like that.
[/quote]
Try telling that to the Philippines BIR
The amount of pointless paperwork their âsystemâ (using the word in the loosest possible sense) produces is incredible, and theyâll use the slightest discrepancy as an excuse to extort âfinesâ from you. Most businesses avoid VAT like the plague - by the simple expedient of lying on their tax returns to avoid the VAT threshold - because the administration costs (nevermind the tax itself) would put all but the most profitable companies swiftly out of business.
Its a safe bet that tax authorities everywhere will never, ever implement a tax system which eliminates the need for tax authorities.
I donât really want men with clipboards descending on me saying ooooh, we reckon that was worth $5, of which $1 is ours; hand it over!
Still with the clipboards? I thought most countries started phasing them out ages ago. But you know the PI better than I do.
[quote=âfinley, post:152, topic:158317, full:trueâ]
VAT collection is: (a) incredibly onerous, (b) likely to result in abuses of power (c) arbitrary[/quote]
Okay, so you would abolish VAT, but I donât think you said you were against taxation entirely. So for whatever tax you would keep, would you have the same rate for humans and corporations, since corporations donât really exist?
The trouble with staying on topic is sometimes everythingâs connected to everything else.
Btw I thought of you guys yesterday (especially Comrade Finsky ) when I saw the premiere of this show. Watch Victorian Slum House videos on demand. Stream full episodes online.
Victorian Slum House | PBS
Interesting stuff, though not quite as cheerful as a Dickens musical.
Okay, so you would abolish VAT, but I donât think you said you were against taxation entirely.
Iâm not against governments raising revenue. It irritates me that the only method they will contemplate is extortion with menaces.
So for whatever tax you would keep, would you have the same rate for humans and corporations, since corporations donât really exist?
I wouldnât have a ârateâ at all. I suppose - in my unicorns and rainbows world - Iâd have the IRS replaced with something like a PR department, whose job is to fluff up government spending projects - silly stuff like national defence, healthcare, or the police force - to convince the plebs that these things are worth funding. There would be incentives, concrete and non-concrete, for people (=corporations) who contribute, and ignominy and inconveniences for those who donât. Non-monetary contributions would be accepted. Crowdfunding, I think the youngsters call it.
Taiwanâs lottery tax receipt is a good system for getting compliance. So is their new generation alternative health insurance premium.
The tax code and the authorities inTaiwan are also very straightforward.
If only theyâd play fair by taxing the landlord class too instead of people who work their butt off every day!