I really get it. But I would posit that if Romney doesn't agree, it is because of the scriptures about the subject that propels a more nuanced view. Surely even the brightest among us can see how easy it is for jealousy or hurt or frustration to creep in, even if you knew that you were benefiting from the investment choices of the rich. And if you aren't persuaded you benefit, then it would be worse. (And when I think about it, it doesn't seem historically that religiosity automatically fixed this either.)
Anyway, maybe someone will find the article enlightening.
Posts: 2175 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for posting that. It was a very interesting read for me. I recently watched "Thrive" which is kind of a compilation of a bunch of conspiracy-theory-like ideas, but had some good points as well. The polar opposite of this guy's ideology.
I had a Book of Mormon class in college, and one of the concepts we covered was that of the Inequality of Man. That we were not sent here to earth to strive to be equal, but to prove how unequal we really are. One of the ideas that I came away with after that section was that it really isn't my job to try to see justice done in this life. There is no way this particular section of my eternal journey is going to be just and fair. It is my job to react to those injustices in a way that brings to myself and those I hang out with a higher quality of life--both here and in the worlds to come.
It is interesting to see how this giga-rich guy sees himself as a benevolent man, who helps bless the lives of millions of middle-class Americans everywhere.
Posts: 460 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see anything to indicate that anything he has done has hurt me or the middle class. In other words, it's no skin off my nose if he's rich. If he does Good Things with his money, more power to him.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with people being worth billions and billions of dollars.
However, I am a proponent of a graduated national sales tax. Where luxury items are taxed at increasingly higher rates as the item ascends to greater luxury status.
Posts: 10855 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be a bit hard on the producers of luxury goods, many of whom are not wealthy at all.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, the rich always want to be richer, so maybe they spend a little less on themselves and a little more on investment. Any jobs lost in the manufacture of exclusive items will be made up in greater investment.
Or at least I'm led to believe that investment creates more jobs more effectively.
Posts: 10855 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word 'incentive' is usually mentioned about now in such conversations.
As in "If you remove the incentive to increase your own wealth/income/riches, then people will stop doing it".
Posts: 2107 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If governments are needed then taxes are needed. Additionally, having traversed down the road of allowable deductions changing to a flat income tax isn't an option. Also, a flat sales tax across the board is a regressive tax. And I think that's a large part of the reason national sales tax isn't gaining more traction.
However, today's computer enabled stores, can handle as many tax divisions as the politician's want to think about. And for the simple mom & pop store. They're not selling huge varieties. So, they could still use simple tax tables for the selection of items. Or, start up businesses could get a special license to charge one rate (given they have a limited product selection) till they meet certain quotas.
And yes if the tax got out of hand, it would dampen incentive, but that's true of any tax. The beauty of a national sales tax though is that just because your rich, you can't avoid it. Unlike the income tax where if they allocate their money correctly they can take advantage of perfectly reasonable deductions.
Keeping in mind of course that the same mechanism by which a business can buy something and not pay sales tax because the product is an ingredient in a final product would still exist. Therefore, a national sales tax will not put any extra burden on business. The same mechanisms they use today for state sales tax would also exist for a national sales tax.
posted
FBN, you miss my point. Imposing a luxury tax means less of the luxury will be consumed, and the non-wealthy producers of the luxury will see their livelihood cut into. No matter how the tax is imposed.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood that, however, as I said taxes are necessary and any tax has the effect of making any item less affordable. If the tax burden is not shifted, then the taxes on the more common items will need to be higher in order to generate the same income level for the government.
So, in effect by saying don't increase the tax of those who have greater ability to pay, you are saying the tax burden needs to be greater on those less capable of paying.
Also, don't confuse this with an argument for redistributing wealth. I am not in any way suggesting take the money from the rich and give it to the poor. If anything I would like to see the government budget reduced and the total tax burden reduced.
Posts: 10855 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't that the burden falls unfairly on the rich. The problem is that the burden falls unfairly on the poor who are providing the luxury services to the rich.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then no matter which way the taxes go the "poor" lose. Seems to me that those "poor" providing services for the rich would suffer fewer loses. Better that then to cause all the poor to be burdened just to save those few poor who might have to find an alternate way to make money.
And just to be clear, those "poor" servicing the rich are craftsmen, performing tasks at a higher skill levels then others. And so we're concerned that these people with a higher than average skill set may need to find alternate employment?
Posts: 10855 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, in effect by saying don't increase the tax of those who have greater ability to pay, you are saying the tax burden needs to be greater on those less capable of paying.
Those with a greater ability to pay are already paying a greater amount. Reduce expenses and you don't have to increase anyone's taxes.
quote:The problem is that the burden falls unfairly on the poor who are providing the luxury services to the rich.
Of course, that is over-generalization. The poor provide much beyond luxury services for the rich. Is it unfair that they are where they are? How much of a part did they have putting themselves in that position? As a "poor" person, I believe I'm largely to blame for where I am and don't feel it is unfair I do what I do. And what I do actually benefits the public, many of whom are "poor", moreso than for the rich.
Posts: 5572 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should not assume that those who choose not to create wealth are entitled to receive wealth from people who do choose to create wealth.
When Jesus taught that we should give unto others, he meant that individuals should voluntarily give, not that governments should force them to.
Fairness is the worst possible basis on which to assess taxes, partly because it is utterly impossible to objectively determine what is fair. No two will agree on what is fair.
Some people think it's fairest when everyone is equally miserable, as in Cuba or North Korea. Others think it's fairest when creators of wealth get to use their wealth as they see fit. This second strategy at least possesses the virtue of making a more prosperous society.
Giving the money to the poor is fine when it helps them over a rough patch, or when they are unable due to their health to work. But when it is given without such provisions, it only creates more poor. The more programs there are for the homeless, the more homeless there will be. Homelessness increasingly becomes a viable lifestyle choice, and more people choose it when the government enables it.
Those who believe that rich and poor should have the same wealth based on fairness tend also to believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and so let's just divide it up equally. What they seem to fail to understand is that work creates wealth. There isn't a fixed amount. People can choose to increase wealth. It's not possible to motivate people to create wealth when it's all confiscated by the government. It has been tried repeatedly, and has never worked.
[ May 04, 2012, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When Jesus taught that we should give unto others, he meant that individuals should voluntarily give, not that governments should force them to.
can I get a scriptural reference for this?
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.
And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word? (Alma 32:13-14)
quote:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. (D&C 58:26-28)
posted
Giving to the poor is only partly because the poor need help. Giving to the poor changes hearts and makes people love God more. Heck it makes people love the people they serve and help more. It stretches the bonds of humanity.
Taxing to the government so it can help the poor, even donating checks but not time ----yes they have their place. But don't do what Heavenly Father hopes, plans, needs charity to do.
Posts: 2175 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim those scriptures do not support the argument. I find it fascinating that one of the Saviours teachings should be considered faithful by one that has chosen to follow him.
quote:When Jesus taught that we should give unto others, he meant that individuals should voluntarily give, not that governments should force them to
gahhh hit the submit button to early. I think forcing all the money into a communist style equal share thing is insane (and was not even done). Yet I do think there was meaning behind Christ's comment to render unto Caesar what is Caesar s, and to render onto God what is.... well we all know the scripture. I see this parable in assisting us reason that some government programs to help the poor are needed but do not replace our choice to go out and do charity amongst our fellow man.
When I make assertions that are blindingly obvious to me, it doesn't occur to me in advance of making those assertions to prove them from the scriptures. Although the Bible doesn't discuss gambling, modesty, abortion, that God helps those those who helps themselves, body piercing, that the commandments about the Sabbath now apply to the next day instead, the unsuitability of crude humor, and mentions courtesy in only a handful of obscure places, yet many generations of Christians* who use the Bible as their source have derived the correct knowledge of these principles from reading the Bible.
So I'll just borrow Jesus' line: Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
*I'm not saying unanimously, so there's no need to inundate this thread with all the exceptions.
[ May 05, 2012, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The beauty of a national sales tax though is that just because your rich, you can't avoid it. Unlike the income tax where if they allocate their money correctly they can take advantage of perfectly reasonable deductions.
It also means that illegals, and others, will pay tax even though they are paid under the table. About 50% of our population don't pay any income tax. I think that everyone should have to pay income tax whether it is to the IRS or by paying a national sales tax. Personally, I think that everyone should pay the same rate no matter how much or little a person makes. That is based on scriptures. The Lord expects everyone to pay 10% tithing whether you are wealthy or poor.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except in the communities with large numbers, illegals are a net positive financially. They pay social security and income tax that isn't to a social security number attached to them so they can't reclaim either on retirement or as a tax refund. They pay property and sales tax. It is only where they overwhelm education and healthcare in concentration and poverty that the communities financial health suffer from their presence. (Okay, the criminals and gangs do drive all costs up. But that is just a small slice of the total.)
posted
Deductions are nice if you get them. They are meant to be. But that is the government picking winners and losers. They will often pick winners that we don't agree with. Or they will make you and your business a loser for arbitrary reasons.
A flat (well, two/three tier) tax would be quite nice in its simplicity. I love simplicity. We would have to get rid of all deductions, including mortgage, charitable, and children.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If individual citizens had to write out sizable checks to the IRS every quarter, we'd all be screaming for tax reform. Faced with an outraged citizenry threatening a tax strike, you can bet there would be immediate and accountable reform.
Amen. If people only knew what they were paying and what they were getting for their money, there'd be a full-scale revolt.
Posts: 3194 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should I have to pay tax on my mortgage interest? That's money being earned by the bank, not by me. Why should I have to pay tax on charitable giving? That money goes to an organization, not to me.
You pay taxes because you are paying taxes on your income. You then choose to use whatever income is leftover in whatever way you choose. If you want to pay for a mortgage, then pay for it. That is debt that you choose to take upon yourself because you and your lender believe that you can pay for it. If you believe in the charity and want to give, then give. It should not be a question of the government picking which charities are going to be the winners.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We would have to get rid of all deductions, including mortgage, charitable, and children.
I thought you were a doctor.
Clearly, you haven't opened a practice. Deductions are the best friend of doctors. They write off all kinds of personal crap to run through their "business." As do way too many small business people around here.
So yeah. I would be in favor of eliminating deductions as long as they audited some of these small business guys who are running the wife's mini van and the gas therefore as business expenses. Plus writing off the kids' new pickup trucks as "business expenses."
Sure, they might get caught if they are one of the miniscule number chosen for audit. And in the meantime, they still manage to get temple recommends.
So bonus. I guess.
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tax credits for having children are a Good Thing because it provides an incentive for citizens to invest their resources in raising up the next generation...
I must say, it would be nice if people only had kids that they could afford.
I get tired of all the subsidies for unmarried mothers on their fifth kid and their 8th live in. People who are married with jobs and kids, pay taxes and get little back, while it seems like the single mommies get WIC, Food Stamps, Free tuition (if they can manage to turn off their big screen TV long enough to get to school), and multitudes of other freebies.
Oh, and the "Earned Income Credit" windfall some of these people get just annoys me every time I see my tax liability in February.
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The recent comments are exactly why I said having gone down the path of deductions, getting rid of them is not going to happen. Even if the government said, "We're going to lower the percent you contribute when we eliminate deductions." The public is not going to go for it.
There are too many people who believe as Roper (and I) that there are legitimate business reasons for income tax deductions. Only a really good sales person could convince the majority of Americans to get rid of their much beholden deductions.
I think Cain's proposal of 9-9-9 caught fire because a he's a good sales person, and b because it's more of tax burden shift. And people don't do the math.
If this article is correct: Surprise! Who's not paying federal income tax?. A lot of these people paying little to no tax will be paying a lot more tax. If he had won, and had his way with the tax code, I think he would have been a one term president.
However, I do think the article is misleading. It gives the impression that most of those earning between 75,000-100,000 are not paying taxes. However, this impression is wrong, a careful read indicates this is the fastest growing segment of people able to reduce their liability to zero.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see a clear indication of what proportion of that segment are not paying. Additionally, I can think of many ways that they could look at the data and make that statement true. The whole statistics and lies quote. Cause personally, even the year when I was unemployed for more than 6 months, I have paid a tax every year for the past thirty plus years.
So, I'm not seeing this pay no taxes benefit.
Posts: 10855 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, come on. Surely this group understands the difference between gross and net in a business that legitimately reduces their gross by what it costs to get that gross, and personal tax deductions like charity, medical, and the like. Of course people should only pay on what they actually MAKE in the course of their business.
Even though it would impact me substantially, I favor getting rid of many personal deductions. One of the ways government gets into the business of redistributing wealth is to manipulate these deductions to favor one group or another. If I were president, I would continue to allow charitable deductions, but only for those things that otherwise government has to provide --- shelter, food, education, medical for poor, humanitarian aid, for instance. I think the 7% medical floor captures the principal of not allowing deductions for things that should be accounted for in an ordinary budget of the ordinary budget. I agree with deducting sales and income and property taxes, since I don't think those should be taxed twice, and a person has zippo control over paying them.
The point of doing away with deductions though is that it should also lower the rate at which tax is paid so the overall collection is neutral.
I'm one of those who thinks that having 50% who do not pay any tax is a really big problem --- why should they care where the tax money goes if they aren't paying.
As for the earned income tax credit, it is designed to be the approximate amount that the worker paid for fica, medicare taxes. Yes, with a large family and a smaller income, it exceeds that amount. And yes if it were me I'd distribute it via debit card over 12 months (since few seem able to prepay bills or save for school clothes in August or other things that would help them dig themselves out of the whole).
posted
When the government uses the tax code to modify behavior, it gets into the kind of social engineering that was expressly repugnant to the Fuonders and that the Constitution was intended to proscribe.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was once told that legally a corporation is equivalent to a person. Has that changed? Did the person who said misspeak?
Given that equality whatever deductions are available to the one are available to the other.
I too view the EIC as nothing but a wealth redistribution system.
I suspect that the reason the constitution does not contain language to prevent "social engineering" is because not every delegate found such behavior repugnant.
Interesting to me, if we had a national sales tax, and no income tax, charitable donations would not be taxable. No sale took place, there was no exchange of goods.
Personally, I do not agree with the 7% medical floor. Currently most employers have a flex pay benefit where a medical expense fund is set aside on a pre-tax basis. If the government is going to allow this type of plan, then just eliminate the medical floor and say medical expenses are a tax deduction.
Posts: 10855 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I am not willing to give up my tax reduction benefits, then how can I expect the 50% who don't pay any taxes to willingly take upon themselves more tax burden? Nothing will change if everyone is unwilling to let go of their little incentive, even if the overall percentage of money paid stays the same or barely moves.
More so, those incentives are constantly in the air. It is a way that the government keeps the people under control. You better not misbehave or vote against me, or I will take away your tax benefit.
It is also a way for politicians to feel good about "doing something". They can proclaim how they fought valiantly for a certain special interest group while their opponent fought against them (even if these were miniscule issues in the enormous omnibus bill.
I am in favor of a major revolution to get rid of the corruption rampant in politics. That cannot be done if we keep the status quo on taxation.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You better not misbehave or vote against me, or I will take away your tax benefit.
I'm sure they exist, however, and it takes a lot for me to actively participate, I would campaign against any candidate that intimated such.
The only conclusion I draw from a statement like this, is that the politician has forgotten who they are supposed to be serving.
If it's not clear yet, I am all about progressive taxes, totally against regressive taxes and neutral about any other tax. I am all for relieving burdens that reduce opportunities for those on the lower income scale.
On the other hand, I am also against any plan to take money from the more wealthy and give it to less wealthy. I am against any welfare system that allows people to subsist and does not motivate (i.e. train) them to be self-sufficient.
Edit to add:
quote:If I am not willing to give up my tax reduction benefits, then how can I expect the 50% who don't pay any taxes to willingly take upon themselves more tax burden?
I have no expectations that life will be "fair" in this life or the next. "Fair" is a strictly point of view argument.
quote: When I make assertions that are blindingly obvious to me, it doesn't occur to me in advance of making those assertions to prove them from the scriptures. Although the Bible doesn't discuss gambling, modesty, abortion, that God helps those those who helps themselves, body piercing, that the commandments about the Sabbath now apply to the next day instead, the unsuitability of crude humor, and mentions courtesy in only a handful of obscure places, yet many generations of Christians* who use the Bible as their source have derived the correct knowledge of these principles from reading the Bible.
So I'll just borrow Jesus' line: Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
When you specifically imply that the idea you present was taught by the Saviour, then yeah supplying a scriptural reference is not only a good idea its communicative. Sorry I cannot get on your particular band wagon at present because I just cannot seem to see a scripture which supports your point of view.
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; ...
FWIW, Jim Clay, this scripture that you cited seems to imply that while voluntary humility is the ideal best, compelled humility is also acceptable, but not preferred.
I tend to think sometimes that the only reason we are compelled (by government taxes in our case) to care for the poor is because we didn't get it done the correct (voluntary) way.
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: this scripture that you cited seems to imply that while voluntary humility is the ideal best, compelled humility is also acceptable, but not preferred.
I would describe the compelled humility more negatively, but I basically agree with you.
quote: I tend to think sometimes that the only reason we are compelled (by government taxes in our case) to care for the poor is because we didn't get it done the correct (voluntary) way.
Do you have anything to back up the assertion that people weren't taken care of before welfare?
posted
There's quite a difference between a government humbling its own citizens and God doing the humbling.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose the case could indeed be made that our government is a curse and scourge inflicted on us by God.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the United States, it would be a "curse and a scourge" of our own making.
I prefer to think of it as a miracle, inspired by God, purchased with precious patriot blood, unique in the history of mankind, of which we lazy Americans (speaking generally, and not specifically) are wholly unworthy at this time.
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
