Cumulative burden of taxes
- Thread starter Bullshot
- Start date
I hear ya. One thing I don’t understand is the usage of “appraised” as opposed to “assessed”. I understand that the appraisal ultimately determines the assessment but the way it’s worded is just odd to me. As a TX transplant i scratch my head here often. But it sure beats at a minimum 40 other states. Maybe 45. Hey, at least we’re not laundering money for foreign terror states and using illogical virtue signaling as an excuse.
Here’s my conundrum via anecdote.
I walk into a bodega in NY to buy a sandwich one evening. Some inebriated fellow asks why I was there instead of a place like dunkin. I try to dodge the interaction as best I could, but to summarize…. Dude goes on a rant about big biz vs little biz (he hates “corporations”) and tries to justify his thoughts. Fair enough, but……
My retirement is tied into this 401k thingy….. and as I far as I know, it can’t be a vehicle to invest into mom & pop biz. I am the shareholder. I’m not saying it’s righteous or not, I’m saying I’m playing a game I’m not in control of. Unless I don’t play the game, which means no dental, no deodorant. (Reminds me I gotta schedule a cleaning). I think Howard Hughes said something to the effect of “I am merely a private citizen, you are the lawmaker.”
I walk into a bodega in NY to buy a sandwich one evening. Some inebriated fellow asks why I was there instead of a place like dunkin. I try to dodge the interaction as best I could, but to summarize…. Dude goes on a rant about big biz vs little biz (he hates “corporations”) and tries to justify his thoughts. Fair enough, but……
My retirement is tied into this 401k thingy….. and as I far as I know, it can’t be a vehicle to invest into mom & pop biz. I am the shareholder. I’m not saying it’s righteous or not, I’m saying I’m playing a game I’m not in control of. Unless I don’t play the game, which means no dental, no deodorant. (Reminds me I gotta schedule a cleaning). I think Howard Hughes said something to the effect of “I am merely a private citizen, you are the lawmaker.”
So you’re suggesting a Flat tax in which my employer is also my accountant?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Not sure how you came up with that. No, not a flat tax. It would need to remain graduated. Your employer knows how much you earned and can tax you the appropriate amount as your income increases through the year. The whole "guess what your deductions and withholdings should be" causes most of the angst at tax time. Yes, there are some holes and it would also be easier if we get rid of a bunch of deductions which cause the ultimate tax to differ. I kind of thought the goal was to simplify the tax code then realized it was mostly about people fighting to tax the other but not themselves.
Spending at federal level is out of control and far exceeds inflation. Both parties to blame. Many state are out of control as well and have huge unfunded liabilities.
Just think if the government didn’t take 50% of what you earned. How much better would our living standard be in they “only” took 25%? That’s a lot of extra money in the pocket.
Politicians only look at one side of the equation. We need more money! We need to raise the minimum wage! Etc
Just think if the government didn’t take 50% of what you earned. How much better would our living standard be in they “only” took 25%? That’s a lot of extra money in the pocket.
Politicians only look at one side of the equation. We need more money! We need to raise the minimum wage! Etc
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,673
Are you referring to comments like "it would be a move in the right direction" when you say that?
I thought the goal of the thread was about the cumalative tax burden. My point has been that even with the heavy burden we are still coming up well short of what we "need" to break even and that we have more of a spending problem than a revenue problem.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Not sure I understand the ? I'm open to a lot of ideas if they lead to a better fiscal situation for us all. Even if that means higher taxes for me (don't tell my wife I said that).
Who is we? The individual or the collective we/government? Collectively we have a revenue problem. If you want start listing out spending cuts we can discuss and debate those. DOGE, in all its glory and incompetence did a good job of proving where the problem is. Part of that discussion on your cuts will be about the beneficiaries and how they might view those "spending cuts".
In my mind DOGE only needed to do one thing: prove that many of us were right that our tax dollars truly being wasted on things that don't benefit the world let alone the American citizen.
It did that in spades.
Was it a huge percentage of the overall spending? No. Does it make it clear to me that the government doesn't deserve another single percent of my money until they can pass an audit and tell us where our money is being spent, open and honestly? Yes. Do I assume they are better at hiding the fraud/waste that makes a bigger impact on the spending? Also yes.
Every time I drive out of TN into a state that has state income taxes and yet worse roads, more tolled roads, crumbling infrastructure, etc. I can't help but wonder what on earth is happening with all that tax money.
It did that in spades.
Was it a huge percentage of the overall spending? No. Does it make it clear to me that the government doesn't deserve another single percent of my money until they can pass an audit and tell us where our money is being spent, open and honestly? Yes. Do I assume they are better at hiding the fraud/waste that makes a bigger impact on the spending? Also yes.
Every time I drive out of TN into a state that has state income taxes and yet worse roads, more tolled roads, crumbling infrastructure, etc. I can't help but wonder what on earth is happening with all that tax money.
If you want to simplify the tax code, then a flat tax that is consumptive based is likely the best approach. Eliminate income taxes and its various cousins. The current US economy if almost 70% personal consumption based. If you include USG consumption this value rises to between 78% and 85% (USG fraction is consumption and investment). Why not make USG revenue generation reflective of the economy itself?
Pros:
- Eliminates politicians ability to reward their friends and punish their enemies through tax give-aways, targeted deductions, etc.; removes one of the levers for big money to buy the candidate of their choice.
- Eliminates the vast bulk of the IRS - taxes are collected at first point of sale as they are already. IRS becomes an auditing function only. No need for the individual to file any tax forms. This is done by retailers.
- It a general sense, it is an elective tax - the more you consume, the more you pay and vice-versa. Exempt foodstuffs from the tax. But everyone pays the same "rate" under one set of rules.
- Prevents the "evil rich" from avoiding taxes since they pay on the consumption side and not the income/wealth generation side. No ability to exploit income tax loopholes.
Cons:
- Everyone pays the same rate (but not the same amount) which will not fly with progressives/liberals that have grown up with the mantra that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.
- Requires the States to re-jigger their respective tax policies since many are tied to US Federal tax code which will be very disruptive.
- State-level politics will lose the same perks that national politics enjoys, the ability to reward/punish those that do or do not align to their political ambitions.
Reality:
- It will never happen. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum won't willingly give up power. Hard to see the US voter having the will (and intelligence) to force the issue.
Similar threads
