06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 ... 5960616263 ...
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    A flat tax sounds good, but when you consider that some goods are used by both the rich and the poor alike, taxing these items at a flat rate would mean that the poor pay a higher rate.

    Also, many people believe that if you have more to gain from our society that you are more obligated to pay to support our infrastructure and for the society that helped you attain your wealth.

    This goes back to the whole 'you didn't build that' comment made by Obama. Probably not the best wording on his part, but it does beg the question, if a large corporation is successful and uses the country's infrastructure and resources to realize these profits, shouldn't they have more responsibility to the very system that helped them realize their fortune?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood and A895 like this.
    12-29-2013 07:44 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    shouldn't they have more responsibility to the very system that helped them realize their fortune?
    More, equal or less responsibility depends on what we're measuring it with. Do you mean more in just pure dollars, more as a percent of revenue, more as a percent of expenditures, more as a percentage of profits? One thing that keeps corprations somewhat on equal footing before tax breaks and subsidies is that they're taxed on profits.

    Meaning, if you're Facebook and you have $5 billion in profit and I'm the Wellman Martial Arts Academy and I have $50,000 in profits, then we both pay the same tax as a percent of profit, regardless of how much revenue or expense is associated with that margin (prior to accounting tricks, in reality I'll pay 20% and FB will pay $0).

    If we apply that model to citizens, it equates to a progressive tax (where we have to assume expenses based on nominal factors and attempt to predict that margin (aka disposable income), such as income amount, number of people in the family, etc) and so if a flat tax on the profits of business is fair, then a progressive tax is also fair, or as close to fair as we can approximate either on average or on aggregate.
    12-29-2013 07:54 AM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    ...if a large corporation is successful and uses the country's infrastructure and resources to realize these profits, shouldn't they have more responsibility to the very system that helped them realize their fortune?
    You would think, but keep in mind businesses would in turn raise the prices and pass that cost on to the consumers anyway. Fair Tax just cuts out the middle man and stream lines the collection (among other things).
    12-29-2013 08:10 AM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    You would think, but keep in mind businesses would in turn raise the prices and pass that cost on to the consumers anyway. Fair Tax just cuts out the middle man and stream lines the collection (among other things).
    But in a perfect system then the rise in prices by company 'A' would translate to more business for company 'B'. Granted, we're no where close to a perfect system.

    Something tells me that if everyone did pay their 'fair' share, people would argue what the word 'fair' entailed. I tend to look at it from a historical perspective, look at our country 50-60 years ago. The wealth at the top wasn't obscenely higher than that of the average citizen. Wealth for the wealthiest Americans has increased tenfold. Such a system cannot sustain itself. It seems like we're headed towards another French Revolution type of scenario. Our generation's 'let them eat cake' moment to me took place when Barbara Bush (I never did care for her picture being on my box of oatmeal, btw) claimed that Katrina victims had it better sitting in the New Orleans Saints Dome than what they had it prior to Katrina. There is a level of indifference that takes ahold of people with too much power and wealth. Eventually enough people wake up and realize that they're not part of the equation and it seems that violence is their only recourse. If you see some of the apparent senseless violence that's already being reported, that's the backlash of a society that's seen its best days behind it.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    12-29-2013 09:14 AM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    More, equal or less responsibility depends on what we're measuring it with. Do you mean more in just pure dollars, more as a percent of revenue, more as a percent of expenditures, more as a percentage of profits? One thing that keeps corprations somewhat on equal footing before tax breaks and subsidies is that they're taxed on profits.

    Meaning, if you're Facebook and you have $5 billion in profit and I'm the Wellman Martial Arts Academy and I have $50,000 in profits, then we both pay the same tax as a percent of profit, regardless of how much revenue or expense is associated with that margin (prior to accounting tricks, in reality I'll pay 20% and FB will pay $0).

    If we apply that model to citizens, it equates to a progressive tax (where we have to assume expenses based on nominal factors and attempt to predict that margin (aka disposable income), such as income amount, number of people in the family, etc) and so if a flat tax on the profits of business is fair, then a progressive tax is also fair, or as close to fair as we can approximate either on average or on aggregate.
    My basis is for a company that requires more out of our infrastructure. Take Walmart for instance, they're going to use more public roads, more police and fire department resources than say a small mom and pop shop. Thus, they should pay more into the system. I won't even mention the fact that we're also subsidizing Walmart when you consider that a lot of their employees are on some sort of government aid.

    Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that identify Walmart as the feel good story about how Capitalism works. I see 2 versions of Walmart, the version that grew under Sam Walton who believed that he should work with local manufacturers and local economies, and the post-Sam Walmart that has been run by his gluttonous offspring. Something tells me that if Sam Walton were alive with all his faculties intact, he would be genuinely disheartened by his legacy.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    12-29-2013 09:24 AM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Something tells me that if everyone did pay their 'fair' share, people would argue what the word 'fair' entailed. I tend to look at it from a historical perspective, look at our country 50-60 years ago. The wealth at the top wasn't obscenely higher than that of the average citizen.
    Many people are already asking what "fair" is, but it's usually people like me asking people like you to define it. Other than a loose idea of a "use more, pay more" type system, no one has been able to nail down what a fair share is.

    Now you also need to consider why the wealth is more lopsided now than in the past. To that, I argue my earlier point that government intrusion and big business lobbying has caused much of it. Back in those earlier times, you didn't have to jump through as many hoops to go into business. Thus, there was more competition, which kept wealth naturally more evenly spread according to market forces. That's less of a reality now.
    12-29-2013 10:22 AM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    Many people are already asking what "fair" is, but it's usually people like me asking people like you to define it. Other than a loose idea of a "use more, pay more" type system, no one has been able to nail down what a fair share is.

    Now you also need to consider why the wealth is more lopsided now than in the past. To that, I argue my earlier point that government intrusion and big business lobbying has caused much of it. Back in those earlier times, you didn't have to jump through as many hoops to go into business. Thus, there was more competition, which kept wealth naturally more evenly spread according to market forces. That's less of a reality now.
    I'm not sure how lobbyists have anything to do with some of the CEO salaries that have skyrocketed. If you look at how the top people have increased their salaries throughout the years, it really makes you wonder. Look at some companies that have done poorly will fire their CEO and give them a nice golden parachute. You don't have those kinds of rules in play for most other workers. What is it that these latest crop of CEOs have done to warrant their salary increases? When it first came on, I watched a few episodes of Undercover Boss and if you've ever watched it, you'll see how unqualified many of these executives are at doing even some of the most basic tasks. I can't remember which culture practices it, but I believe it to be the Japanese business culture that has their CEO swap roles with various levels of their workforce. This keeps the executive both humble and cognisant of different aspects of the company's operations. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we're perfectly fine with the same social class system that we were desperately trying to secede from back in the 1700s.
    12-29-2013 10:43 AM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    That's way too high, unless you're making $100K a week.
    They do. I think its the overtime.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-29-2013 11:07 AM
  9. A895's Avatar
    [Thread Cleaned - Quoted Post]

    Taxes are not worse than slavery, how dare you make such a statement. Taxes and being bound, chained, beaten and humiliated and lynched is too different extremes. I don't know what is up with people comparing slavery to politics nowadays. I got into it with someone on TheVerge for comparing slavery to spying. Why don't we stop bringing up slavery at all?

    Posted Via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-29-2013 11:40 AM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    My basis is for a company that requires more out of our infrastructure. Take Walmart for instance, they're going to use more public roads, more police and fire department resources than say a small mom and pop shop. Thus, they should pay more into the system. I won't even mention the fact that we're also subsidizing Walmart when you consider that a lot of their employees are on some sort of government aid.

    Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that identify Walmart as the feel good story about how Capitalism works. I see 2 versions of Walmart, the version that grew under Sam Walton who believed that he should work with local manufacturers and local economies, and the post-Sam Walmart that has been run by his gluttonous offspring. Something tells me that if Sam Walton were alive with all his faculties intact, he would be genuinely disheartened by his legacy.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    Companies also give back to the community in jobs and wages and taxes they pay for goods/services they consume. Yes they could not operate without the infrastructure, but the society that created that infrastructure cannot operate without the businesses. It is a give and take. One cannot exist without the other and to imply that it is a one sided relationship is just plain wrong.

    And Walmart has always operated under the "others must fail for us to succeed" business model. Which was not that bad when there were a few stores and products were sourced locally, but now that Walmart can take loses on new stores just to wipe out all the local businesses it has reached a completely unacceptable point. My point is, Sam started the cut throat business. The Walmart of today is only an evolution of what he started. He may have never personally taken it this far, but he fostered the ideals that made the Walmart of today.
    12-29-2013 12:13 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Wow, you must be one of the few people on here who make sense! I agree, if you tax the business and the rich more, they will spend less. This will affect the little guy in the end. Is Fair Tax the same as the flat rate tax?
    What you say isn't false, but that's not where my post was going. The point was by placing more taxes and regulation on big business and the wealthy, often promoted by those same groups, it places more hurdles on the little guys out there having to abide by those same changes. The result being it stifles small business growth but the big guys are barely affected and prosper more.

    The flat tax is an idea of taxing income at one flat rate across the board. The problem is the proposals I've heard still leave open the opportunity for groups to lobby for exemptions and breaks. The government tried something similar before to simplify the tax code, and what we have today is the result of that.

    The Fair Tax guts the IRS and removes all federal income, investment, corporate, etc. taxes, and replaces them with a roughly 23-24% inclusive national retail sales tax on every new item. By inclusive, that means a shelf price of $100 on an item is about $77 for the item and $23 included sales tax. Considering this plan eliminates the 22% embedded taxes normally passed on to the customer anyways, shelf prices will not go up by much and you now have zero federal taxes withheld from your paycheck.

    The other important part is the "prebate." At the start of the month, every legal household in the country gets a check from the government to cover the expected amount of taxes that would be paid for a given family size up to the poverty level. It isn't based on income and there are no exclusions on which legal citizens get the prebate (illegals obviously wouldn't get the check). They opted for this vs exempting necessities because of how complicated those exemption rules would become yet they felt that no one should have to pay taxes on the necessities of life. The prebate and non-tax of used goods is what offsets the otherwise regressive nature of a sales tax.

    That's the bare bones workings of the plan, but it would have tremendous effects on the government and economy in its simplicity. As was already suggested, I've gone pretty in depth with it on a couple other threads in this section if you want to read up on it.

    Does this mean that the seller would tax new items sold online, but not used?
    Correct, but only when selling to the end user.
    12-29-2013 12:20 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    Companies also give back to the community in jobs and wages and taxes they pay for goods/services they consume. Yes they could not operate without the infrastructure, but the society that created that infrastructure cannot operate without the businesses. It is a give and take. One cannot exist without the other and to imply that it is a one sided relationship is just plain wrong.

    And Walmart has always operated under the "others must fail for us to succeed" business model. Which was not that bad when there were a few stores and products were sourced locally, but now that Walmart can take loses on new stores just to wipe out all the local businesses it has reached a completely unacceptable point. My point is, Sam started the cut throat business. The Walmart of today is only an evolution of what he started. He may have never personally taken it this far, but he fostered the ideals that made the Walmart of today.
    You can also argue that employees also give to these companies by supporting them. Without the customer there IS no company.

    We can argue back and forth until we're blue in the face. To me it all boils down to one truth that is pretty much universal and Mr Miyagi taught, "BALANCE DANIEL SAN!". Our economy is a very detailed and complex system. Think of it like an ecosystem. You have those feeding at the top of the food chain, the middle part of the food chain, and then you have the bottom feeders. If that ecosystem gets too many predators at the top of the food chain, guess what, the ecosystem will eventually suffer and will sometimes fall under its own weight. What's funny is if you talk about balance to some people, the first word that comes out of their mouth is "SOCIALISM!!" No one's trying to steal anyone's money, but that's the first thing people claim when you insist that the balance of our economy is out of whack. Much of the wealth that was more evenly distributed is now shifting upward. With the middle class having less and less buying power demand will decline and eventually we'll see companies react by laying off even more employees. To me the only way I see us reversing the current trend is by rolling back some of the policies that got us here in the first place. And guess what part of that roll back includes, high earners paying more taxes.
    12-29-2013 12:28 PM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    You can also argue that employees also give to these companies by supporting them. Without the customer there IS no company.

    We can argue back and forth until we're blue in the face. To me it all boils down to one truth that is pretty much universal and Mr Miyagi taught, "BALANCE DANIEL SAN!". Our economy is a very detailed and complex system. Think of it like an ecosystem. You have those feeding at the top of the food chain, the middle part of the food chain, and then you have the bottom feeders. If that ecosystem gets too many predators at the top of the food chain, guess what, the ecosystem will eventually suffer and will sometimes fall under its own weight. What's funny is if you talk about balance to some people, the first word that comes out of their mouth is "SOCIALISM!!" No one's trying to steal anyone's money, but that's the first thing people claim when you insist that the balance of our economy is out of whack. Much of the wealth that was more evenly distributed is now shifting upward. With the middle class having less and less buying power demand will decline and eventually we'll see companies react by laying off even more employees. To me the only way I see us reversing the current trend is by rolling back some of the policies that got us here in the first place. And guess what part of that roll back includes, high earners paying more taxes.
    It is a chicken or the egg scenario. Both business and society are codependent upon each other.

    How about we balance the budget, lower the tax burden, and get out of debt. Then we can argue who should pay what. If we continue going into debt at the same rate, none of it is going to matter anyway.
    12-29-2013 01:00 PM
  14. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Time rolls on and every time government expands, the economy takes a hit. Bailouts, handouts and printing money just because you can don't work.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-29-2013 01:22 PM
  15. likeag8's Avatar
    I know that's aircrew, but I am not sure what position. Are you still active? Thanks for your service.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    it was "aerial gunner" which later had a designation to "special missions aviation." i did my 4 years active then another 4 in the reserves. currently i am a 31P1, "security forces officer" but i am trying to change to one of the cyberspace career fields, or possibly special tactics officer...it just depends on how adventurous i am feeling.

    Sent from my HTC One
    12-29-2013 01:37 PM
  16. likeag8's Avatar
    What you say isn't false, but that's not where my post was going. The point was by placing more taxes and regulation on big business and the wealthy, often promoted by those same groups, it places more hurdles on the little guys out there having to abide by those same changes. The result being it stifles small business growth but the big guys are barely affected and prosper more.

    The flat tax is an idea of taxing income at one flat rate across the board. The problem is the proposals I've heard still leave open the opportunity for groups to lobby for exemptions and breaks. The government tried something similar before to simplify the tax code, and what we have today is the result of that.

    The Fair Tax guts the IRS and removes all federal income, investment, corporate, etc. taxes, and replaces them with a roughly 23-24% inclusive national retail sales tax on every new item. By inclusive, that means a shelf price of $100 on an item is about $77 for the item and $23 included sales tax. Considering this plan eliminates the 22% embedded taxes normally passed on to the customer anyways, shelf prices will not go up by much and you now have zero federal taxes withheld from your paycheck.

    The other important part is the "prebate." At the start of the month, every legal household in the country gets a check from the government to cover the expected amount of taxes that would be paid for a given family size up to the poverty level. It isn't based on income and there are no exclusions on which legal citizens get the prebate (illegals obviously wouldn't get the check). They opted for this vs exempting necessities because of how complicated those exemption rules would become yet they felt that no one should have to pay taxes on the necessities of life. The prebate and non-tax of used goods is what offsets the otherwise regressive nature of a sales tax.

    That's the bare bones workings of the plan, but it would have tremendous effects on the government and economy in its simplicity. As was already suggested, I've gone pretty in depth with it on a couple other threads in this section if you want to read up on it.


    Correct, but only when selling to the end user.
    sounds like a win for everyone

    Sent from my HTC One
    12-29-2013 01:39 PM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    .....And Walmart has always operated under the "others must fail for us to succeed" business model. Which was not that bad when there were a few stores and products were sourced locally, but now that Walmart can take loses on new stores just to wipe out all the local businesses it has reached a completely unacceptable point. My point is, Sam started the cut throat business. The Walmart of today is only an evolution of what he started. He may have never personally taken it this far, but he fostered the ideals that made the Walmart of today.
    Wow! Something we agree on, but be careful, you might get labeled a Socialist for sticking your nose into their business.

    On a serious note, I saw it happen first hand by my mother in laws house and her town looks like a ghost town now.
    NoYankees44 likes this.
    12-29-2013 01:59 PM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    sounds like a win for everyone

    Sent from my HTC One
    Except the government and K street lobbyists.
    12-29-2013 02:02 PM
  19. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Why does everyone always blame someone else, ie Walmart? If you shop there, you are the problem you complain about. And if you always shop for the cheapest, instead of made in America, you're part of the problem. I remember, I think it was back in the 80's, when Walmart had made in America promotion they were pushing. No one bought from it and Walmart quit it after a while.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-29-2013 02:06 PM
  20. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Wow! Something we agree on, but be careful, you might get labeled a Socialist for sticking your nose into their business.

    On a serious note, I saw it happen first hand by my mother in laws house and her town looks like a ghost town now.
    I must be hanging around here too much ;-)

    And we actually usually agree on the problem, the method of fixing is where the disagreement happens.
    palandri likes this.
    12-29-2013 02:29 PM
  21. JW4VZW's Avatar
    it was "aerial gunner" which later had a designation to "special missions aviation." i did my 4 years active then another 4 in the reserves. currently i am a 31P1, "security forces officer" but i am trying to change to one of the cyberspace career fields, or possibly special tactics officer...it just depends on how adventurous i am feeling.

    Sent from my HTC One
    Very impressive, sir. I understand about STO and being adventurous. It looks like a demanding career field. Aerial Gunner, eh? AFSOC or rescue? How’d you end up in law enforcement?
    sounds like a win for everyone

    Sent from my HTC One
    Which is why it’ll never happen!
    12-29-2013 02:59 PM
  22. Paul627g's Avatar
    @ All

    Due to personal views and interpretation of things discussed in this thread it resulted in some participants taking things further than we would like to see within the forum rules & guidelines even with the " heads up warning " of being off topic/political forums.

    Regardless of anyone's views on politics and the associated topics discussed in here we still have to take into consideration your fellow members when it comes to insults, personal attacks, trolling and derailing of discussion. Therefore given all this the thread will remain closed and we hope in future discussion and topics everyone takes a moment to realize what they post can have a very negative impact on others and themselves in regards to your account status if it breaks the rules.

    Note : Some comments were removed in this thread during the moderating process.

    Anyone who is unclear can review the Forum Rules & Guidelines and full explanation of the point system used.
    Community Rules & Guidelines - Mobile Nations Forums

    Paul
    Moderator Team Leader @ Android Central.
    12-30-2013 11:44 AM
  23. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Yet another shinning example of why the GOP are bigots and idiots.

    This is what you get when you vote for the GOP. A vote for GOP is a vote for bigots. This is also why anything the GOP is says or does for anything is dead in the water as they pass crap like this. Saddest part is this is the GOP. There is no getting around this BS.
    You can scream Economy all you want but the GOP needs to fix this issue before they should EVER be allowed in power again. This is the crap GOP supports are for.

    Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com
    Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

    The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

    "I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    02-22-2014 09:35 PM
  24. toober's Avatar
    While I do feel business owners should be free to decide who they do business with, laws like this confuse me. I mean, does it really hurt anyone, religious or not, to serve lunch to a gay person? Are we talking "regular" gay, or just the over the top, flaming variety? Should they now pass a law giving gay business owners the right to deny service to bible thumpers? If they turn away black gays, are they being racist also?
    02-22-2014 10:02 PM
  25. nolittdroid's Avatar
    I just don't understand how people still think like this. The right to discriminate goes against everything our constitution stands for. I know our constitution does not explicitly state gay, LGBT, etc but I thought it guarantees everyone equal protection against the law.

    SG3/iPad2/OG NookColor
    02-22-2014 10:55 PM
1,813 ... 5960616263 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD