She's making Buck-Cake!
Forum rules
- Consider all threads NSFW
- Inlined legal images allowed
- No links to illegal content (CG-wide rule)
- Consider all threads NSFW
- Inlined legal images allowed
- No links to illegal content (CG-wide rule)
- Schol-R-LEA;2
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:58 am
- Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley
- Contact:
Would you all please stop talking partisan nonsense? To hear you folks talk, you'd think there were substantial differences between the two halves of The Party. There aren't. The differences between the Dems and the GOP are about as deep as tinsel, which is also how flimsy their platforms are. The only support any politician deserves is from six strong men wearing black armbands.
I rather regret having made that joke now, and had I realized what sort of political hot air it would cause, I wouldn't have made it.
I rather regret having made that joke now, and had I realized what sort of political hot air it would cause, I wouldn't have made it.
Last edited by Schol-R-LEA;2 on Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
Schol-R-LEA;2, First Speaker, Last Eristic Church of Finagle and Holy Bisexuality
#define KINSEY (rand() % 7) // Keeper of the Tent Peg of Homosexuality +5
You draw it, we misinterpret it. - Bo Lindbergh // Oinos! Oinos! Pentadaktyloi phylloi!
"Shakespeare gets so much better when the bodies start thumping against the Danish earth." - Sir Thomas of Cornwall
moderator of the GenderShifters LJ community
#define KINSEY (rand() % 7) // Keeper of the Tent Peg of Homosexuality +5
You draw it, we misinterpret it. - Bo Lindbergh // Oinos! Oinos! Pentadaktyloi phylloi!
"Shakespeare gets so much better when the bodies start thumping against the Danish earth." - Sir Thomas of Cornwall
moderator of the GenderShifters LJ community
Who said I'm a Democrat?
"It is the difference between the unknown and the unknowable, between science and fantasy - it is a matter of essence. The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the unknowable. The man who bows in that final direction is either a saint or a fool. I have no use for either."
-- Roger Zelazny Lord of Light
-- Roger Zelazny Lord of Light
- CottonStar
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:43 am
- Location: I can darn well tell you where I'm not: The universe.
- Contact:
- Squidflakes
- Cartoon Villain
- Posts: 4484
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:49 am
- Location: Hovering Squidworld 97A
- Contact:
Yea, don't want to creamate them, you never know what kind of fumes THAT would release.Schol-R-LEA;2 wrote: The only support any politician deserves is from six strong men wearing black armbands.
Squidflakes, God-Emperor of the Tentacles.
He demands obeisance in the form of oral sex, or he'll put you at the mercy of his tentacles. Even after performing obeisance, you might be on the receiving ends of tentacles anyway. In this case, pray to Sodomiticus to intercede on your behalf.
--from The Bible According to Badnoodles
perverted and depraved and deprived ~MooCow
Visit the Naughty Tentacle Cosplay Gallery
He demands obeisance in the form of oral sex, or he'll put you at the mercy of his tentacles. Even after performing obeisance, you might be on the receiving ends of tentacles anyway. In this case, pray to Sodomiticus to intercede on your behalf.
--from The Bible According to Badnoodles
perverted and depraved and deprived ~MooCow
Visit the Naughty Tentacle Cosplay Gallery
I have never ever seen a sexy politician. They. do. not. turn. me. on.Yes, it all started when some pretty face started feeding us her excretions and made us like it.
Wait -- she must be a politician!
(Although if I'm brutally honest, neither does this young girlie mucking about in the stew-pot.....Sorry Sordsman303

And by the way - I'm compelled to chime in here, only because I saw someone say something along the lines of having an American spouse making the process of immigration smoother... Sadly not always the case. Over in my neck of the woods in regards to the USofA and Ausrtralia it is a big fucking myth that immigration via marriage is just a matter of paper-work. I've met men with Thai wives both at the Aussie embassy and as friends elsewhere who've had a hell of a time getting their wives approved. The most disgusting thing is the recurring theme through all these peoples stories is the way their wives were treated - as if they were all without question uneducated prostitutes who had been dumb-lucky enough to be chosen by a foriegner, and were trying to wrangle citizenship of a country of which they'd contribute nothing more to other than their presence.
UGH!!!
To university educated women - all working, one of whom owned her own company etc. this was incredibly offensive!
The worst thing is that no one even need say the word "prostitute" - cultural stereotypes over here concerning inter-race relationships, particularly white-male/thai-female are such that the utter contempt and disdain, along with a few very innapropriatley phrased personal questions and implications are all that is needed.
I eventually had to accompany a dear friend of mine to the Aust.embassy (Thai fem.) and vouch for her moral character just so that she could applyfor a 6month non-immigrant, non-working visa to visit a mutual friend of ours in Sydney (a long-time mate of mine, an her current boyfriend). She had attempted 3 times previously, and one of the staff had actually had the balls to say to her, "I don't believe he's your "boyfriend" - AND done those pretentious quotation-marks in the air with her fingers when she said boyfriend. AND she then went on to tell her that she didn't believe for an instant that she could pay for the trip. All this insightful bullshit was spouted BEFORE even taking a glance at the mountains of required forms and bankstatements my friend had filled-out and brought with her.
On her fifth attempt she finally got her visa (only for 2 months though.)
Also, bear in mind that my friend is a gainfully employed (full-time) architect.
*sigh*
Sorry... Immigartion, and visa policies are a topic that really gets me fired up. Such stupidity is the reason why I cannot use the passport of my homeland to return to my homeland, and it's led to poor poor people in that homeland to sewing their lips together, and (finally) I am currently doing my best to save up the required "bail" (don't know the appropriate translation

However, unlike their Mexiacan bretheran, even when, for example, low-skilled Cambodian workers manage to get legal working visas for Thailand - the lifestyle is still atrocious. They are issued with a slip of paper (the visa, duh


Oh, and in case anyone was wondering - if this happens, he doesn't get paid, even if hours were already completed
*Even longer, much more cross and cranky sigh*
Sorry - Like I said, it's a subject that very very much gets on my nerves. And if it's any consolation to the "partisan arguing" that was going on just prior to my little rant, let me just say this -
America does have it's immigration issues and perhaps policy flaws, but in that it is just like most every other nation in the world - However at this point in time it's immigrants, legal and illegal, whether they're struggling or rolling in it, are damn lucky that thay're in America and not in certain other places...But either way it's an area that desperately needs amendment and reform worldwide - In my stroppy, humble and little opinion.
Bugger - I've put myself in a really filthy mood now.....I'm off to happy land

I shall keep myself in oysters for the rest of the week, thank you very much.
*snuggles Lulu*
I don't feel your pain, but i can tell that it hurts like a bitch.
~Sara
I don't feel your pain, but i can tell that it hurts like a bitch.
~Sara
OMG, new Icon!!!! From the genius of Potter Puppet Pals http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/, icon created by http://www.livejournal.com/users/minttea/
Snape is Love.
Snape is Love.
Hehe... Thanks hon.
~Sara
~Sara
OMG, new Icon!!!! From the genius of Potter Puppet Pals http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/, icon created by http://www.livejournal.com/users/minttea/
Snape is Love.
Snape is Love.
- Honor
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Not in the Closet
- Contact:
Wow... How remarkably and insightfully... Wrong.Schol-R-LEA;2 wrote:Would you all please stop talking partisan nonsense? To hear you folks talk, you'd think there were substantial differences between the two halves of The Party. There aren't. The differences between the Dems and the GOP are about as deep as tinsel, which is also how flimsy their platforms are. The only support any politician deserves is from six strong men wearing black armbands.
I mean... I know it's a popular thing to carp about, and a popular view for those who don't understand politics or government, or aren't having their own desires met... But it's really simply nothing like even remotely true. Not any part of it.
While the republican party may not be radically conservative enough for some people nor the democratic party liberal enough for others, if you don't see too many serious and important differences to count in short order, you simply either aren't paying enough attention, or you don't understand one or both parties sufficiently.
As to the popular saw that all politicians are false, self-interested, worthless, useless, base, and evil personified... That idea doesn't bear any more response than the idea that all blacks are lazy or all lawyers are sleazy.
Do you want to change things? Do you want to make the world a better place? Ensure rights for the weak and assistance for the needy and advancement for education and arts and science? Keep your family safe and protect the environment and expand our exploration into space?
Well, as it happens, if you have interests in several of these goals, then you'd better get into politics... Because that's the only way to have a significant impact on these issues. The decisions are made by those who show up, and believe it or not, some people study politics and help with campaigns and run for office because we care about these things, and we want to help ensure that the right choices are made.
Last edited by Honor on Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered...."

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.
I'm with you there, Honor.
~Sara
~Sara
OMG, new Icon!!!! From the genius of Potter Puppet Pals http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/, icon created by http://www.livejournal.com/users/minttea/
Snape is Love.
Snape is Love.
- Swordsman3003
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Gainesville, FL
- Contact:
Okay, I've been watching this one from the sidelines and I have a LOT to add now.
First of all, there is no such thing as corporate taxes. If you take money from a corporation, this money does not come out of nowhere. They will do one of three things: Raise prices, fire workers, or cut profits. There are the only places for money to come from. Look at each instance: raising prices is really taxing consumer good, firing workers is taxing ALL of those individual's incomes, and reduced profits are the same as taxing business owners. Get it straight: Only individuals can pay taxes.
Now, you guys need to check out http://www.fairtax.org/ because even though these guys are blatantly partisan, they have the right idea.
Fairtax:
1. Get rid of all taxes. Payroll taxes, death taxes, social security taxes, etc. etc.
2. Create a new retail tax of 23%. This is not a flat tax. A retail tax would tax goods at the end of the production line when you pick them up at Target or Walmart or where ever. Used goods are not taxed, but services are. There is not one single exemption to this tax for anybody anywhere.
Note: Money earned but not spent is not taxed. You can save and invest money tax-free.
Some agruments against the tax that are false:
1. Prices will go up. No, even with +23% prices will change by a few pennies. Already in the price of goods, there are embedded taxes because the government taxes good all the way through the production line. Prices will remain nearly the same.
2. The transition cost will be too great. Name me one transition cost. Retailers have complained they can't afford new registers to accomodate that tax rate. Don't they already use them for state taxes? Can't electronic registers be recalibrated?
3. It unduly taxes the poor. Nope. Every month the government will send every single person a check, a prebate, covering the taxes on essentials like milk, etc. etc. In fact, because there will be no payroll taxes and this prebate everyone will be getting, the poor will be much better off.
This new law will eliminate the IRS are reduce the thousands of pages of tax code to a few pieces of paper. Everyone will understand where there money is going. Oh, did I mention retailers have to include the cost of the tax in their advertised prices? I could go on all day! If anyone thinks they can challenge this or want to hear more just say so!
First of all, there is no such thing as corporate taxes. If you take money from a corporation, this money does not come out of nowhere. They will do one of three things: Raise prices, fire workers, or cut profits. There are the only places for money to come from. Look at each instance: raising prices is really taxing consumer good, firing workers is taxing ALL of those individual's incomes, and reduced profits are the same as taxing business owners. Get it straight: Only individuals can pay taxes.
Now, you guys need to check out http://www.fairtax.org/ because even though these guys are blatantly partisan, they have the right idea.
Fairtax:
1. Get rid of all taxes. Payroll taxes, death taxes, social security taxes, etc. etc.
2. Create a new retail tax of 23%. This is not a flat tax. A retail tax would tax goods at the end of the production line when you pick them up at Target or Walmart or where ever. Used goods are not taxed, but services are. There is not one single exemption to this tax for anybody anywhere.
Note: Money earned but not spent is not taxed. You can save and invest money tax-free.
Some agruments against the tax that are false:
1. Prices will go up. No, even with +23% prices will change by a few pennies. Already in the price of goods, there are embedded taxes because the government taxes good all the way through the production line. Prices will remain nearly the same.
2. The transition cost will be too great. Name me one transition cost. Retailers have complained they can't afford new registers to accomodate that tax rate. Don't they already use them for state taxes? Can't electronic registers be recalibrated?
3. It unduly taxes the poor. Nope. Every month the government will send every single person a check, a prebate, covering the taxes on essentials like milk, etc. etc. In fact, because there will be no payroll taxes and this prebate everyone will be getting, the poor will be much better off.
This new law will eliminate the IRS are reduce the thousands of pages of tax code to a few pieces of paper. Everyone will understand where there money is going. Oh, did I mention retailers have to include the cost of the tax in their advertised prices? I could go on all day! If anyone thinks they can challenge this or want to hear more just say so!
- Toawa
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1069
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:05 pm
- Location: Everywhere. Kinda...
- Contact:
Don't get me wrong; I agree that this type of system is probably preferable to our current one, but don't dismiss the arguments too soon.
There are thousands of computer programs that would have to be changed, because they can't handle a VAT-like tax (which is what this is). People have to be paid to change them.
There are millions of cash registers to be "recalibrated." People have to be paid to recalibrate them.
There are thousands of companies who need to know exactly what to do under the new system. Lawyers have to be paid to tell them.
etc.
When the companies involved at the earlier stages of the change suddenly find themselves paying less taxes on those goods that they make, will they really lower the price? If there's a lot of competition, then you'll probably see the prices drop immedeately, but if they're the only ones in their field, it might take them longer to drop their prices, if they ever do. While they'll eventually realize that they'll have to, either due to loss of sales or increase in competition, there will be a time when the price of those goods are taxed at the old rate.swordsman3003 wrote: 1. Prices will go up. No, even with +23% prices will change by a few pennies. Already in the price of goods, there are embedded taxes because the government taxes good all the way through the production line. Prices will remain nearly the same.
When you take a code that has evolved over the last 100 years and suddenly throw it out the window, there's going to be huge transition costs involed, no matter what the change is. Inertia.swordsman3003 wrote: 2. The transition cost will be too great. Name me one transition cost. Retailers have complained they can't afford new registers to accomodate that tax rate. Don't they already use them for state taxes? Can't electronic registers be recalibrated?
There are thousands of computer programs that would have to be changed, because they can't handle a VAT-like tax (which is what this is). People have to be paid to change them.
There are millions of cash registers to be "recalibrated." People have to be paid to recalibrate them.
There are thousands of companies who need to know exactly what to do under the new system. Lawyers have to be paid to tell them.
etc.
I thought of this too, and in theory it would work... But I have the nagging feeling in the back of my head that some, particularly of the poor, will look at that check and immedeatly think, "Woohoo! Free booze money!" (Replace "booze" with your vice of choice.) While from my strictly economic conservative views, I shouldn't be worrying about that, especially since it's that kind of thinking that leads to the kind matriarchal State that I detest... It still pops into my head.swordsman3003 wrote: 3. It unduly taxes the poor. Nope. Every month the government will send every single person a check, a prebate, covering the taxes on essentials like milk, etc. etc. In fact, because there will be no payroll taxes and this prebate everyone will be getting, the poor will be much better off.
Toawa, the Rogue Auditor.
(Don't ask how I did it; the others will be ticked if they realize I'm not at their stupid meetings.)
Interdimensional Researcher, Builder, and Trader Extraordinaire
(Don't ask how I did it; the others will be ticked if they realize I'm not at their stupid meetings.)
Interdimensional Researcher, Builder, and Trader Extraordinaire
- Swordsman3003
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Gainesville, FL
- Contact:
Yes, this is partially true. But consider when when airlines became deregualted: Their operating costs went way down, but they kept prices the same for short while. However, once one small airline company dropped their prices to account for the lowered operating costs, every airline had to follow suit for fear of being run out of business. If prices suddenly jumped during that transition, people could just wait around until the businesses were forced to return prices to their original level, which would be a matter of days. Secondly, though, the law also accounts for this kind of transition cost. It says any good already on the production line when the law goes into effect are exempt from the tax (because they've already been taxed). So those prices would automatcally remain the same. But, I will admit, a few monopoly-like businesses may have hiked rate for a short while. But how many of these companies are there?Toawa wrote:When the companies involved at the earlier stages of the change suddenly find themselves paying less taxes on those goods that they make, will they really lower the price? If there's a lot of competition, then you'll probably see the prices drop immedeately, but if they're the only ones in their field, it might take them longer to drop their prices, if they ever do. While they'll eventually realize that they'll have to, either due to loss of sales or increase in competition, there will be a time when the price of those goods are taxed at the old rate.
This is not a value-added tax any more than a sales tax is a VAT. What do you mean it will be costly to change what the registers ring up? Businesses have to do that all the time! States' sales taxes are not a fixed number; all electronic registers should be as equipped to handle changing a 7 to an 8 as a 8 to a 23.Toawa wrote: When you take a code that has evolved over the last 100 years and suddenly throw it out the window, there's going to be huge transition costs involed, no matter what the change is. Inertia.
There are thousands of computer programs that would have to be changed, because they can't handle a VAT-like tax (which is what this is). People have to be paid to change them.
There are millions of cash registers to be "recalibrated." People have to be paid to recalibrate them.
There are thousands of companies who need to know exactly what to do under the new system. Lawyers have to be paid to tell them.
etc.
While I suppose many companies would want to hire lawyers to understand this new system, you are failing to account for all the lawyers they can fire. Tens of thousands of accountants and lawyers sole job to is
to figure out how to comply with out immense and ridiculus tax code. They will be no real change here, the people they already have on the payroll will just do a different job. Something like 80% of time spent on board meetings is the discussion of tax consquences. I image CEO will have a lot more time to play golf.
I see what you are saying, but by this argument you invalidate welfare, social security, etc etc, just about ANY government handout. If that's what you're aiming at, that ok then. Just explaining here.Toawa wrote: I thought of this too, and in theory it would work... But I have the nagging feeling in the back of my head that some, particularly of the poor, will look at that check and immedeatly think, "Woohoo! Free booze money!" (Replace "booze" with your vice of choice.) While from my strictly economic conservative views, I shouldn't be worrying about that, especially since it's that kind of thinking that leads to the kind matriarchal State that I detest... It still pops into my head.
You guys that live here in the US do realize what all this will mean, right? If you make 40,000 per year, you probably take home something like 27,000 dollars once the government has nabbed its share. The way things will work out if this new code is passed, you will take home every cent of that 40k, and you pay your taxes when you buy things, not when you save for retirement, not when you buy stock with it, etc.
Something else of note: We will finally tax illegal industries. Prostitute will pay taxes when they buy furniture. Drug dealers will pay taxes when they fill up their tank.
Not to mention, even illegal immigrants will have to pay taxes if they want to buy milk and bread because they will not collect the prebate.
People who come to the US and buy things will pay our taxes, the way it is now they don't unless they become a citizen.
Food for thought.
That's quite a nasty sweeping statement in a way. Whilst I have no problem with the whole drug dealer side of things. There are certain illegal industries that have very argumentative statuses as far as "illegal" goes. For example, the red-light industry, otherwise known as the sex-trade, in all it's facets including the "semi-legal" ones, not just prostitutions (eg. strip clubs, massage parlors, escort agencies, etc.) Although I am definitely not here to start an argument about whether or not this type of industry should be legalized, I will say this -Something else of note: We will finally tax illegal industries.
I was working is said industry in Australia back in 1999 when the 10% GST (goods and services tax) was introduced, with massive uproar - because our newish prime-minister John Howard had sworn blind on nation television a few years prior that Australia would never have a GST. Anyway, this is incidental.
As you theorise, yes, all of a sudden I was paying tax on food, gas, clothes etc. However, owing to the nature of my work, being a luxury for our client-base,this caused problems. Door-charge (fee to enter club area of establishment) had to go up by 10% to cover the GST, rendering it ridiculously expensive, also the prices of services ( which is the figure from which the girls cut comes from) had to be substansually raised so that the services and replacement of products (of which there are many) that are required for the upkeep of such an establishment, could be paid - after all, these all individually had a 10% increase on them. So, of course, the girls cut of money got very very much smaller.
Now the regular client-base for place like this are regular hard-working every-day joes. And naturally, people in general whether it was true, or just in their heads, due to the GST scare stopped spending money on luxuries. There just wasn't money to spare. Literally overnight everyones takeings were cut by pretty much just over a third.
I remember going to the supermarket about a week into the whole thing and just standing there laughing at the price of apples and seriously wondering how I was going to afford living.
Anyways, I now live in a country with a 7% VAT and I still don't think it does very equitable favours for people. From what I've seen and experienced by GST'sVAT'sBlahblah blahs the folk who get the most out of them are the ones who can get by just fine either way.
I shall keep myself in oysters for the rest of the week, thank you very much.
- Honor
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Not in the Closet
- Contact:
If you want to become an expert on a given subject, read one book.
Likewise, firing or laying off workers isn't a tax on their incomes, it's a removal of their incomes... It's not like their incomes suddenly go into the IRS coffers. It's corporations reducing overhead costs. If they are able to maintain production levels without those people, then the corporation had an underemployment problem to begin with. If production falls off, then so will sales.
Likewise again, reducing profits is absolutely not the same as taxing business owners. It's reducing tax revenues across the board... If the corporation makes less money, then the corporation, the employees, the owners, and even the retailers all make less money and pay less taxes.
Get it straight yourself: A corporation is an artificial person, and as such it can absolutely be taxed. It can be taxed heavily or lightly. It can be taxed right out of existence. We can prove this, because it's happened before, several times.
Just because all costs, taxes included, eventually make it all the way around the economic model, doesn't mean corporations can't be taxed. It just means they adjust to those taxes differently. This is full market capitalism and macroeconomy. It's heady, complicated stuff, and it's pretty resistant to clever sweeping one-line explanations.
Further, your insistance that prices won't change appreciably because similar tax amounts are already in place is a bit... hopeful. The way it would shake out depends primarily on politics and marketing. If the opposition fights this thing by insisting that prices will go up, and they lose... So people expect prices to go up, then they will... More than the tax "increase" justifies.
And the idea that we'll "finally tax illegal industries" is deeply, deeply falacious. Illegal industries will be taxed under your system exactly as effeciently (but at a higher rate) as they are now - which is to say, when the money is spent on legal goods inside this country. The huge a mount of the money that goes to Columbia or Afghanistan (Thanks George) will remain blissfully untaxed.
And wait... That brings up another interesting point. Under this plan, we've also lost effectively 100% of taxes levied on foreign owned corporations operating in the united states. As it is now, the Toyota factories in the US are operated as technically separate corporations that pay taxes on profits. Under the new plan, the raw materials aren't taxed, 'cause they're not at the "end of the production line", the American consumer pays taxes on the finished product, and the profits go to Japan, unhindered.
All that being said, yeah sure. It's worth a read, and it very well could be the answer. I've already agreed much earlier in this thread that a VAT, properly written and enforced around the obvious loopholes there for the rich, might very well be the answer we're looking for.
Oh, and dude... Don't say "Death Tax". You're way smarter than that. A tax that only applies to the richest 1 or 2 percent of Americans, who did absolutely nothing to earn the money being heaped upon them is most assuredly not a "death tax". And don't buy into that "Taxes have already been paid on that money!" bullshit. Taxes are levied when money changes hands. If I give you $5M for your birthday, taxes will have to be paid on it. Hell, if I give you even $15,000 taxes will have to be paid, to be legal. There is absolutely no excuse to say that gift should be tax free just because the person giving it died first.
Wrong. I mean... It's a mighty impressive logic loop, but it's still very, very wrong. If the taxes paid by a corporation increase, they may try to add those costs to sales prices, but the potential success of that strategy depends on a whole pile of other market factors... And if they do? Big deal. They're raising prices due to an increase in production costs.swordsman3003 wrote:First of all, there is no such thing as corporate taxes. If you take money from a corporation, this money does not come out of nowhere. They will do one of three things: Raise prices, fire workers, or cut profits. There are the only places for money to come from. Look at each instance: raising prices is really taxing consumer good, firing workers is taxing ALL of those individual's incomes, and reduced profits are the same as taxing business owners. Get it straight: Only individuals can pay taxes.
Likewise, firing or laying off workers isn't a tax on their incomes, it's a removal of their incomes... It's not like their incomes suddenly go into the IRS coffers. It's corporations reducing overhead costs. If they are able to maintain production levels without those people, then the corporation had an underemployment problem to begin with. If production falls off, then so will sales.
Likewise again, reducing profits is absolutely not the same as taxing business owners. It's reducing tax revenues across the board... If the corporation makes less money, then the corporation, the employees, the owners, and even the retailers all make less money and pay less taxes.
Get it straight yourself: A corporation is an artificial person, and as such it can absolutely be taxed. It can be taxed heavily or lightly. It can be taxed right out of existence. We can prove this, because it's happened before, several times.
Just because all costs, taxes included, eventually make it all the way around the economic model, doesn't mean corporations can't be taxed. It just means they adjust to those taxes differently. This is full market capitalism and macroeconomy. It's heady, complicated stuff, and it's pretty resistant to clever sweeping one-line explanations.
Um... How do you figure? This is absolutely a VAT. As thus far explained, it bears almost no distinguishing features from a VAT. If, specifically, it were "no more a VAT than sales tax is a VAT" then you wouldn't be making shakey distinctions between one time "end of production line" tax points and the sales of used items. Used items are subject to sales tax.swordsman3003 wrote:This is not a value-added tax any more than a sales tax is a VAT.
Further, your insistance that prices won't change appreciably because similar tax amounts are already in place is a bit... hopeful. The way it would shake out depends primarily on politics and marketing. If the opposition fights this thing by insisting that prices will go up, and they lose... So people expect prices to go up, then they will... More than the tax "increase" justifies.
And the idea that we'll "finally tax illegal industries" is deeply, deeply falacious. Illegal industries will be taxed under your system exactly as effeciently (but at a higher rate) as they are now - which is to say, when the money is spent on legal goods inside this country. The huge a mount of the money that goes to Columbia or Afghanistan (Thanks George) will remain blissfully untaxed.
And wait... That brings up another interesting point. Under this plan, we've also lost effectively 100% of taxes levied on foreign owned corporations operating in the united states. As it is now, the Toyota factories in the US are operated as technically separate corporations that pay taxes on profits. Under the new plan, the raw materials aren't taxed, 'cause they're not at the "end of the production line", the American consumer pays taxes on the finished product, and the profits go to Japan, unhindered.
All that being said, yeah sure. It's worth a read, and it very well could be the answer. I've already agreed much earlier in this thread that a VAT, properly written and enforced around the obvious loopholes there for the rich, might very well be the answer we're looking for.
Oh, and dude... Don't say "Death Tax". You're way smarter than that. A tax that only applies to the richest 1 or 2 percent of Americans, who did absolutely nothing to earn the money being heaped upon them is most assuredly not a "death tax". And don't buy into that "Taxes have already been paid on that money!" bullshit. Taxes are levied when money changes hands. If I give you $5M for your birthday, taxes will have to be paid on it. Hell, if I give you even $15,000 taxes will have to be paid, to be legal. There is absolutely no excuse to say that gift should be tax free just because the person giving it died first.
"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered...."

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.
- Honor
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Not in the Closet
- Contact:
Not for nothin', but c'mon... If a 10% increase in the price of something renders that price "ridiculously expensive", let's face it... It was pretty much ridiculously expensive to begin with.Lulujayne wrote:Door-charge (fee to enter club area of establishment) had to go up by 10% to cover the GST, rendering it ridiculously expensive...
I agree fully with the point you make about the downturn in consumer spending due to public perceptions of such a tax change. Such a downturn would probably be pretty massive... At least at first. Consumer spending isn't driven by cash in hand and bank balances, but rather by expectations. People who expect to have less in the future spend less today. Particularly on "luxuries".
As to your other point about VAT style taxes being worse for the poor and better for the rich... As I understand it, most VAT schemes work on a vairable flow, based on the everyday necessity of the item taxed, right? Which would explain why the booklets authors feel justified in incorrectly characterizing their flat sales-based tax as bearing no resemblance to a VAT. I'm not sure what they think they're getting around by taxing everything equally and sending the po' folks a check every month, but my gut instinct is the plan is deeply flawed.
I've always said that a VAT-like scheme as a solution in the US is frought with dangers of loopholes for the wealthy. I'd want to see some pretty intelligent and comprehensive planning to get around them before I supported such a plan.
Oh, and I don't at all mind starting a fight to say those types of "business" should absolutely be legalized and regulated.

"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered...."

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.
- Honor
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 3775
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Not in the Closet
- Contact:
Speaking of partisan nonsense...
In looking around a bit more to find information on this subject, I come to a listing of the co-sponsors of the bill... Thomas doesn't make it easy to find their political affliliation, so setting up that list will take a few minutes. I'd hold out hope for it, if it were co-sponsored by a raft of fairly proportional balance, for instance.
Well, first glance at the sponsors list on this one leans heavily Republican, which I'll admit makes me pretty suspicious. See, the problem is, despite some people thinking otherwise, Republican political thought is simply not centered around what's best for the people of the United States and world at large. I have no doubt a lot of Republicans think it is, but they're mistaken... An error generally born of short-sightedness and self interest. So, if this bill is mostly supported by Republicans, it's probably pretty deeply flawed from most points of view. But, hey... Could be nothing. Maybe a lot of the names I don't recognize are Democrats and independants...? I'll have to look up each name to be sure. It could even be that it is the most perfect possible solution, and the Republicans are for it... Because they can't see past the sentence "no income taxes". Unlikely, but possible, huh?
The biggest red flags I've found so far, though, come to me as I'm scanning the list of co-sponsors.
Representative Jeff Flake of the Arizona 6th is, so far as I've been able to tell, a complete moron. (Trent Franks, AZ 2nd is less well known to me personally, but his website makes it fairly clear he's fully willing to legislate is religious beliefs into law) Tom DeLay of the Texas 22nd is possessed of the cutest little miniature intellect ever, and has combined it with a disturbingly atrophied sense of social responsibility, and a dangerously mutated sense of morality. The fact that both of these fella's like this plan certainly screams that it must be read very carefully before it's trusted.
Then we come to Representative Cliff Stearns of the Florida Sixth. That name rang a bell for me. Know why? Let's take a look at another bill Representative Stearns sponsored:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D ... mp/~bdnszw::
H.CON.RES.11 Title: Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the Hall of the House of Representatives and the Chamber of the Senate.
And a quick glance at the status listing of this evil little slice of un-americana shows that all of it's co-sponsors are also co-sponsors of HR25. If you don't find that really, really disturbing... Well, if you don't find that really sidturbing, I don't know offhand what to tell you.
So I'm still interested in reading the legislation and looking up all the sponsors, but unless there is some conspiracy by... I'm not sure whom, to sink this by attaching the names of a bunch of wackos to it... I'm thinking there's just about got to be something badly wrong with it.
In looking around a bit more to find information on this subject, I come to a listing of the co-sponsors of the bill... Thomas doesn't make it easy to find their political affliliation, so setting up that list will take a few minutes. I'd hold out hope for it, if it were co-sponsored by a raft of fairly proportional balance, for instance.
Well, first glance at the sponsors list on this one leans heavily Republican, which I'll admit makes me pretty suspicious. See, the problem is, despite some people thinking otherwise, Republican political thought is simply not centered around what's best for the people of the United States and world at large. I have no doubt a lot of Republicans think it is, but they're mistaken... An error generally born of short-sightedness and self interest. So, if this bill is mostly supported by Republicans, it's probably pretty deeply flawed from most points of view. But, hey... Could be nothing. Maybe a lot of the names I don't recognize are Democrats and independants...? I'll have to look up each name to be sure. It could even be that it is the most perfect possible solution, and the Republicans are for it... Because they can't see past the sentence "no income taxes". Unlikely, but possible, huh?
The biggest red flags I've found so far, though, come to me as I'm scanning the list of co-sponsors.
Representative Jeff Flake of the Arizona 6th is, so far as I've been able to tell, a complete moron. (Trent Franks, AZ 2nd is less well known to me personally, but his website makes it fairly clear he's fully willing to legislate is religious beliefs into law) Tom DeLay of the Texas 22nd is possessed of the cutest little miniature intellect ever, and has combined it with a disturbingly atrophied sense of social responsibility, and a dangerously mutated sense of morality. The fact that both of these fella's like this plan certainly screams that it must be read very carefully before it's trusted.
Then we come to Representative Cliff Stearns of the Florida Sixth. That name rang a bell for me. Know why? Let's take a look at another bill Representative Stearns sponsored:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D ... mp/~bdnszw::
H.CON.RES.11 Title: Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the Hall of the House of Representatives and the Chamber of the Senate.
And a quick glance at the status listing of this evil little slice of un-americana shows that all of it's co-sponsors are also co-sponsors of HR25. If you don't find that really, really disturbing... Well, if you don't find that really sidturbing, I don't know offhand what to tell you.
So I'm still interested in reading the legislation and looking up all the sponsors, but unless there is some conspiracy by... I'm not sure whom, to sink this by attaching the names of a bunch of wackos to it... I'm thinking there's just about got to be something badly wrong with it.
"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered...."

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.

Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...
The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com
Warning: Xenophile.
- Toawa
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1069
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:05 pm
- Location: Everywhere. Kinda...
- Contact:
Unfortunately, I think this is taken a bit too far sometimes. Because a corporation, as an entity, can't be thrown into prison, or forced to do community service, etc. many traditional methods used to dissuade illegal activities do not work; the punishment is fines, which are factored in as a cost of doing business. But I digress...Honor wrote:Get it straight yourself: A corporation is an artificial person, and as such it can absolutely be taxed. It can be taxed heavily or lightly. It can be taxed right out of existence. We can prove this, because it's happened before, several times.
Psychology would play a very large part in this, as seen in Lulu's story. Even though, at the end of the day (well, year), people may be at the same point they would have been anyway, all they're seeing is higher prices. I guarantee you, if all salaries/wages jumped 25%, and all prices jumped 20%, overnight, people would scream bloody murder over the "price gouging." This country, as a whole, lacks a lot of basic economic knowledge, to our detriment.Honor wrote: Further, your insistance that prices won't change appreciably because similar tax amounts are already in place is a bit... hopeful. The way it would shake out depends primarily on politics and marketing. If the opposition fights this thing by insisting that prices will go up, and they lose... So people expect prices to go up, then they will... More than the tax "increase" justifies.
An interesting problem, and one I hadn't considered. But I wonder if the loss of that part of income would be offset by the corresponding improvement in our trade balance. With this, or a similar system, in place, eliminating our untaxed imports and double-taxed exports, our goods would become that much more attractive. If nothing else, it might become cheaper to buy from us than buy from China and ship it all the way. (Probably not, but one can hope.)Honor wrote:And wait... That brings up another interesting point. Under this plan, we've also lost effectively 100% of taxes levied on foreign owned corporations operating in the united states. As it is now, the Toyota factories in the US are operated as technically separate corporations that pay taxes on profits. Under the new plan, the raw materials aren't taxed, 'cause they're not at the "end of the production line", the American consumer pays taxes on the finished product, and the profits go to Japan, unhindered.
The inheritance tax actually has a very important function, which is to avoid the economic stagnation that has been seen in Europe, with the accumulation of old, old, old money which is effectively cut out of circulation, and all the problems that causes.Honor wrote:Oh, and dude... Don't say "Death Tax". You're way smarter than that. A tax that only applies to the richest 1 or 2 percent of Americans, who did absolutely nothing to earn the money being heaped upon them is most assuredly not a "death tax". And don't buy into that "Taxes have already been paid on that money!" bullshit. Taxes are levied when money changes hands. If I give you $5M for your birthday, taxes will have to be paid on it. Hell, if I give you even $15,000 taxes will have to be paid, to be legal. There is absolutely no excuse to say that gift should be tax free just because the person giving it died first.
It has always fascinated me that there seems to be a vocal portion of our population who seem to treat the Ten Commandments as some sort of magic(k) talisman to ward off evil. And that the same group tends to take a dim view of other religions using other objects for the same purpose.Honor wrote:H.CON.RES.11 Title: Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the Hall of the House of Representatives and the Chamber of the Senate.
"A man blinded by his faith... stubs his toe a lot." - Me, unless someone else said it first.
Toawa, the Rogue Auditor.
(Don't ask how I did it; the others will be ticked if they realize I'm not at their stupid meetings.)
Interdimensional Researcher, Builder, and Trader Extraordinaire
(Don't ask how I did it; the others will be ticked if they realize I'm not at their stupid meetings.)
Interdimensional Researcher, Builder, and Trader Extraordinaire
- SpasticSage
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:30 pm
- Location: Teetering on the knife's edge between wisdom and lunacy.
Okay, I fail to see the purpose of this national income tax thing. Perhaps I'm being very dense.
Fairness? I've already told you guys that I dismiss this concept w.r.t. taxes.
So tell me, how do you think this is going to change the allocation of the nation's costs? And what purpose will this serve?
As the current system goes, earnings from savings and investments (outside of tax-advantaged retirement accounts and some others) are taxed yearly, hitting those that are well enough off to be able to save.
Under the "sales tax" system, tax is spread proportionately among the spenders. But the wealthy are very likely to have a higher savings rate than the poor and the middle class. And the wealthy are effectively paying a lower rate of tax than the less affluent. I.e. this smells to me like a regressive tax. Sure, maybe all money will eventually be spent (or not - these guys propose eliminating the estate taxes). But the wealthy get to defer their taxes, likely earning interest and investment income on that money in the meantime, untaxed, as well. NOT ONLY THAT, but since corporate taxes are repealed, profits from investments can be expected to be higher (at least in the short run).
So the wealthy, who can afford to save a higher percentage of their income, stop paying tax on that previously-taxed portion of their income, stop paying tax on the earnings they get just by having money (assuming they don't spend it, but this is their savings after expenses, so of course they're less likely to spend it), and expect more income from their savings and investments
So as I see it, this tax allocates more of the government's expenses to the poor and middle classes than the current system. Is this change in allocation something you were shooting for? If not, in what way do you think the allocation of the government's expenses should be changed from the current state?
Fairness? I've already told you guys that I dismiss this concept w.r.t. taxes.
So tell me, how do you think this is going to change the allocation of the nation's costs? And what purpose will this serve?
As the current system goes, earnings from savings and investments (outside of tax-advantaged retirement accounts and some others) are taxed yearly, hitting those that are well enough off to be able to save.
Under the "sales tax" system, tax is spread proportionately among the spenders. But the wealthy are very likely to have a higher savings rate than the poor and the middle class. And the wealthy are effectively paying a lower rate of tax than the less affluent. I.e. this smells to me like a regressive tax. Sure, maybe all money will eventually be spent (or not - these guys propose eliminating the estate taxes). But the wealthy get to defer their taxes, likely earning interest and investment income on that money in the meantime, untaxed, as well. NOT ONLY THAT, but since corporate taxes are repealed, profits from investments can be expected to be higher (at least in the short run).
So the wealthy, who can afford to save a higher percentage of their income, stop paying tax on that previously-taxed portion of their income, stop paying tax on the earnings they get just by having money (assuming they don't spend it, but this is their savings after expenses, so of course they're less likely to spend it), and expect more income from their savings and investments
So as I see it, this tax allocates more of the government's expenses to the poor and middle classes than the current system. Is this change in allocation something you were shooting for? If not, in what way do you think the allocation of the government's expenses should be changed from the current state?