Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

[Flashermac]

How about the STATES decided what to pay their senators and congressmen. Why the aitch should Congress get to raise its own pay and give themselves full pensions after about 6 years of service?

 

I'll help support my Congressmen. Why should I chip in to pay Noo Yawk's and all the rest?

 

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

So, your plan is 10% income tax on personal & corps, no exemptions, right?

 

What about capital gains? Would it be taxed? At what rate?

 

Regards,

SD

 

Let me ask you this. Is it 'income'? No matter how it, the money gained, is derived... it is income (whether deferred or not) and would be taxed at the flat rate. Of course it would be taxed. You made money. At the flat rate set, whatever it is (I already see the numbers are rising. What is it now the anti-flat-raters are spouting here?) that would be your tax on the money you make, or a business makes. And yes, you are correct, the number 10 is just a figure to use in the discussion, not the actual flat rate.

 

Cent

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Chapstick,

 

Business

 

1. PP&E Depreciation - (your business, your cost-not the taxpayers of America's)

 

2. Foreign earned income (already taxed abroad, not repatriated) - (No problem. You lived and worked abroad/your company operates abroad. You did not use the US government's 'services'. No tax if not repatriated. And what services you do use of the USA's while doing business and living and working overseas you would pay for. Otherwise, get your host country to do it for you if it is so profitable for you to do your business overseas.)

 

3. Goodwill - (So what you want is the American taxpayer to subsidize your company's Good Will?)

 

4. Interest costs/income - (What do you mean by 'interest costs'? You want the US taxpayer to subsidize your interest costs? Income? Would be taxed at the flat rate of course.)

 

5. Treatment of R&D (capitalized? expensed?) - (Your cost as a part of doing business. WTF?)

 

6. Timing of revenue realization â?? (Oh for Godâ??s sake. Bean-counting baloney. At some point you make money off of your goods and services that you provide, yes? That is your income, and it would be taxed at the flat rate.

 

7. Timing of cost realization â?? (Why would we care for tax purposes? You will have no deductions in the flat rate system.)

 

8. Expensing of stock options - (Well, until you actually sell your stock options you have not gained the â??incomeâ??. Once you sell and make money from the stock you get taxed on that income at the flat rate. Remember, there are no tax deductions!)

 

Personal

 

1. 401K's, IRA's (existing, new) - (Taxed at the flat rate upon withdrawal? It is deferred income isnâ??t it? But this is a deal the government has made to get people to actually save towards their retirement years. These sort of â??incentivesâ?? the government now provides would need to be looked into further as a part of a flat rate tax scheme of course.)

 

2. 529 accounts â?? (But of course this is also a â??dealâ?? the government now has to help people pay for their childrenâ??s higher education; a worthy cause and idea for sure in a country where higher education costs have soared to insane amounts. Might not it be better to reign in these costs?)

 

3. Interest income from government bonds - (Taxed at the flat rate upon maturity.)

 

4. Capital losses and gains - (Your loss is not subsidized by the government and taxpayers. You gain is income and is taxed at the flat rate.)

 

5. AMT â?? (You mean Alternative Minimum Tax? The flat rate has no deductions so what would this matter? It would be obsolete as part of the tax system would it not?)

 

6. Foreign earned income - (Same as above for businesses.)

 

7. Deductibility of state and local taxes - (None. You choose to live and work where you do.)

 

8. Insurance proceeds - (Taxed at the flat rate. It still is â??incomeâ?? isnâ??t it?)

 

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Chappie,

 

"The problem with simplifying the tax code is that, at present, the tax code is used to encourage certain economic decisions (buy a house, save for retirement, buy gov't bonds, etc)."

 

Exactly. These incentives are all well and good under the current system. And who are these incentives aimed at? The middle class mostly, right? And why do they need this? Because there is no fair tax relief due to the many loopholes and give-aways the federal government gives to corporate America, the rich, and others leeching off the system and paying far less in taxes than they should. The middle class carries the tax burden, which gives them less money to save or spend.

 

"Take away those incentives and you take away the behavior."

 

Possibly, I doubt it would stop the 'behavior', although it would lessen it likely.

 

As a B-School Finance professor once told me: "To evade taxes is illegal. To avoid taxes is ... (insert dramatic pause)... your civic duty".

 

Because? Why? The tax system is unfair maybe?

 

"Don't get me wrong, I would make out like a bandit on HH's 10% flat tax scheme."

 

 

10 is just the number used for discussion purposes. What it would really be or need to be is another matter.

 

"So if someone in the gov't wants to implement it, then fine by me. I just think the discussion of a flat tax is an exercise in intellectual masturbation."

 

Because? You mean it will never be implimented. Of course not. It is too 'fair', simple, and reasonable to ever pass into being. What's wrong with a bit of mental masturbation. I see it on the site all the time.

 

Cent

 

 

[Old Hippie]

And of course' date=' 10% would NOT be the number.

[/quote']

I say we draft HH to oust McCain at the convention. I'll vote for him and his 10% flat tax in a heartbeat!

 

I appreciate the thought. And "read my lips"...10% on all sources of gross income for individuals and businesses. Warning to tax attorney's, tax accountants, and 70% of IRS employees: start job hunting right now!

 

 

HH

 

 

You have my vote!

[Bangkoktraveler]

What might better is a value tax. Tax on everything you buy. If you are poor, you will not pay much. But if you are wealthy, then you might be paying a lot more.

[Central Scrutinizer]

BT,

 

Correction, if you are poor you will pay more. Which you can little afford if you are poor. VAT on luxury items maybe? Personally I would not want to see a Federal VAT. Bad enough many states use this sort of 'sales' tax.

[..]

Cent, with a true flat tax, the poor & middle classes will pay more due to losing their deductions (i.e., if you earn below ~$15k, you now pay no taxes). An alternative would be somehow making the flat tax scheme wealth-based. The interesting thing about a "wealth tax" is that a flat tax on wealth is about as progressive as the current income tax -- which is fair if loopholes are closed. That's because wealth distribution is so skewed in the United States: The top 1% have 33% of the wealth (and so should pay 33% of the total taxes). The top 20% have 51% of the wealth (and so should pay 51% of the total taxes). Etc.

 

But as has been proposed by pols so far, "flat tax" is just a sleight-of-hand pseudo-conservative tax scheme. No major pol (including Steve Forbes and more recently Mike Huckabee) has ever proposed a flat tax, if by that we mean a tax where everyone pays the same percentage of income as you propose. But for some reason, gonzo tax schemes of this type have driven pseudo-conservative culture for years. But what they propose is just another rehash of what we've already got: e.g., large deductions make the "flat tax" "progressive," as Dick Armey explained in his unintentionally comical book on the subject.

 

And of course, there never will be a true flat tax because that means businesses will have to start paying their fair share. Never happen in our current political structure, where big biz owns our pols. Hence Chappy and my opinions that this is just "mental wanking."

 

EDIT: Let's put it another way, using these two points:

 

1) Ask the average Joes making $40k/yr whether they are really willing to pay more in taxes so that wealthy people can pay less? Unless they are insane, I suspect the answer will be a resounding "NO!" For a "flat taxÂÂ," income or sales, to be revenue-neutral means that the vast majority of ordinary people would have to pay more in taxes, so that the very wealthiest can pay less. This is why guys like Steve Forbes are so keen on the idea of a flat tax. It is all about reaming your butt more, so his gets reamed less.

 

2) Ask a conservative why they never talk about making the Social Security tax a "flat tax�" The reason is that if they did, the wealthy would pay more, all other things being equal.

 

So you see, the "flat tax" concept is just a Trojan Horse to screw the common man and make sure Jim Rich Guy pays less.

 

Cheers,

SD

[Neo]

This is why guys like Steve Forbes are so keen on the idea of a flat tax

 

When Steve Forbes unveiled his flat tax plan he pledged to write in the tax law that he personally is excluded from it to keep people like you from making stupid remarks like that.

 

[..]

Blahblahblah. Urban legend and pointless to the debate.

 

Argue my facts and math. Oh, ya...you can't!

 

Cheers,

SD