Pros and Cons of No Income Tax or Small Business Tax?

[eye_of_the_storm]

Wondering about solutions to a lot of problems ...

I think no income tax and no small business tax could be a silver bullet of sorts

So I will go with Pros

> More individual wealth = more spending = more jobs
> More individual wealth = ability to afford good organic foods (increase in personal health) + support eco friendly practices (increase in environmental)
> Subsidies would be removed and true values would be found (more incentive for ecological practices)
> More individual wealth = ability for lots of small business = creativity + local jobs + industry = more sustainable
> More individual wealth = less need to loan money from banks = more freedom, less usury

> Ability to afford own high standards of education (if desired), education becomes less government controlled... private education creates the need to be competitive/ provide good education

> Ability/ Choice for parents or a parent to stay at home and care for their own children + educate

>Ability to afford your own healthcare

>Greater incentive to work as half your wage isn't being plundered by the government + your hard labour isn't being used against you + others (funding conflict and social engineering at home and abroad)

I think a goods tax and large business tax would be more than enough to fund infrastructure and minimal welfare stuff (the need for such I think would be dramatcially reduced if no income tax etc happened)

A goods tax at say 5-10%... which would be voluntary ...as you decide what you do and do not buy

and similar of large business (however that is defined - profits over 10 million? a flat tax of 10% after 10milion mark? or something)

Edited August 21, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Marblehead]

I have always been in favor of a flat tax system. The same percentage rate for everyone of all income of any kind above a fairly established "poverty rate" or "low income rate". No exemption, no subsidies (for those above the poverty rate).

 

But that is too easy for our government. The government must keep the taxing system confusing so that we are at their command as to what is "right" or "wrong".

[thelerner]

edit> I probably should have read the OP more closely. Yet, my basic point remains. Seems to me such a tax would only bring a small fraction of what taxes do now.

 

I guess you could ask the same thing about paying for goods. There'd be lots of advantages if shops gave there stuff away for free. Matter of fact most of the advantages are the exact same.

 

Course a shop wouldn't last long giving there stuff away free. Similarly the government provides myriad protections from roads to police, education, safety standards and inspections, a very very expensive safety net to provide medicine and income for elderly and disabled. It spends more then it takes in too. Countries resorting to the 'free money' route inevitably make there currency worthless.

 

So, the question isn't should it be free, rather, what services do you want to cut, how much money would it raise and do you understand the possible often unintended consequences?

Edited August 27, 2014 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

I just want to point out that I am not looking for anything free. All I would like to see is fairness in our taxing system.

 

It is a fact that a multi-millionaire, Romney, has a tax rate that is 1/2 of what mine is. I am sure one can find many cases where the wealthy are not paying their fair share. Fairness and equality (of the taxing system) is all I am asking for.

[Stosh]

Flat tax rates favor the weathy personally because the cost of living is a lower percentage of their earnings unless they choose to spend far more than theyd need to for housing electricity expensive cars and such. The money they earn can be earned only because the whole system allows for it , and they are not responsible for the whole system so there is no solid basis to call graduated tax scales as unfair.

If the less well off, can send their sons to fight to secure trade relations , sea lanes and so forth, one could potentially say they have inordinately shouldered the requirements of the system.

Likewise , one cant say that a plumber is less important to society than a doctor,

though they potentially do not make the same income

and the garbage man likely works far harder than say some stock trader.

 

The system is geared to allow the reward of services that society requires and to regulate the supply of those services.

That doesnt mean it is actually equitable .... its just a system.. of 'give and get'.

Unless youre one of the highly wealthy , a flat tax isnt in your interest , benefits dont magically appear as if from thin air when tax formulas are simple.. SOMEONE will sacrifice either way , SOMEONE has to pay for the service.

Wealth-money derives its value from the efforts required to generate product and the need for it. The worker is the one who is creating wealth, the capitalist provides the situation for that work to be done. Theres a need for both , but the concentration of wealth is a trend that the graduated tax base was installed to mitigate,, unless you like the poor getting even poorer so that there is more for the most wealthy a flat tax should contraindicated , one doesnt need to have a 'complicated graduated tax system ' that can be done simply as well.

It is the inequitable distribution of tax advantages and overspending which creates our economic woes most strongly,, not the idea of graduated tax.

[Marblehead]

Flat tax rates favor the weathy ...

Yes, that is the standard arguement. But it does not hold water. It would if the tax rates were returned to the rates they were when Bush took power but he and his Reaganites cut the rates for the wealthy in half and increased them for some middle and lower income people.

 

And Obama hasn't done anything to correct the tax laws but he, like Bush, keeps spending more money than there is revenue. And this is what causes inflation.

[Stosh]

Yes, that is the standard arguement. But it does not hold water. It would if the tax rates were returned to the rates they were when Bush took power but he and his Reaganites cut the rates for the wealthy in half and increased them for some middle and lower income people.

 

And Obama hasn't done anything to correct the tax laws but he, like Bush, keeps spending more money than there is revenue. And this is what causes inflation.

I dont understand your contradiction here, MH ,

Neither Bush nor Reagan installed the 'flatter' tax platform ,

of eliminating income tax..

they ballooned the deficit which temporarily heats up the economy

(but I agree Obama hasnt fixed the issues either.)

Edited August 22, 2014 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

I dont understand your contradiction here, MH ,

Neither Bush nor Reagan installed the 'flatter' tax platform ,

of eliminating income tax..

they ballooned the deficit which temporarily heats up the economy

(but I agree Obama hasnt fixed the issues either.)

I apparently did not express myself well with that. I'll try again.

 

Note: Reaganites refer to those who favor "trickle down economy". Make the rich people richer than they ever wanted to be and then their excess will trickle down to those who are in need. But don't help the needy - that's just wasted money.

 

 

Okay. Bush followed "trickle down economics" to the letter. He reduced, almost in half, the tax rates of the very wealthy. Yes, the upper-middle and middle income people got breaks but not near as large as the very wealthy. But he continued to spend more and more money which caused the government to get more and more in debt. Approaching 18 trillion dollars right now.

 

And this is because Obama has Reaganite advisers in his staff. He knew what they were when he appointed them. Obama is a Reaganite is disguise.

 

I understand what you are saying regarding a flat tax rate hurting the less wealthy more than the wealthy because for the less wealthy it is taking disposable income and giving it to the government whereas the taxes paid by the wealthy is just excess money that they wouldn't spend anyhow.

 

But, if many of the wealthy are taxed at a rate of 7% (Romney's and many others' rate) and I, who in the state of Florida am considered a low income person but yet taxed by the US government at a rate of 14% (last year's tax rate for me) then it is my opinion that something is wrong. Put both of us at 10% rate and the government would get way, way, way more money.

 

But no. They can't do that. It would be unfair to the wealthy. And afterall, most of our government officials are wealthy. Do you think they are going to pass a law that gives the government more of their money? No way in hell! This is obvious as no changes have been made.

[Stosh]

I can basically agree with that all there, personally I think the tax load is already way too high on both the wealthy and the less well off. Taxes do impede business , our debt renders govt less efficient per dollar collected, complex tax laws leave legal loopholes (especially for the wealthy- but also for the poor) , none of the congresses have been fixing anything..and especially the recent congress which I think should be held criminally liable for a failure to do their job, and the supreme court has a pack of idiots coming to nonsensical conclusions based on the precedent of stupidity set by courts before them.

But thats what weve got.

[joeblast]

until the fraud is prosecuted, nothing changes

until the money changers are thrown out of the temple, nothing changes

until the federal reserve is murdered with prejudice and buried in Tartarus,

 

we will not have representation in the republic...what is left of it.