Agreed. Treat like any other income. Tax as earned, not realized and at the same rates as you tax a more hoinest day's hard work.
Perry to propose a flat tax
- Thread starter Core Imposter
- Start date
So this means I'll spend a much greater portion of my income on vacationing abroad instead of buying assets.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
What if it decreases in value? Do you get to offset it with ordinary income or future income?
katipunero
Prince
the government might end up owing money to you.
katipunero
Prince
Which doesn't make any goddamn sense.
yep, ever heard of tax credits, refunds, rebates and creditable deductions?
if you remit or pay taxes on your quarterly returns or on your withholding taxes but it turns out you suffered losses in total or that the amount due on taxes are less (as stock prices do rise and fall on a regular basis), you can claim a refund on the excess on what should have been lawfully due and properly paid. the government sends you a check or a certificate which you can use like real money (because it is real money anyway).
there's just no accurate way to determine the tax basis of the rise and fall of stock prices in the market. so if you treat appreciation of assets as earned income, you got a situation where you make the government pay back people for taxes that should not have been paid for the year. this system would have been probably disastrous around 2007-2008 when the stock markets collapsed.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,416
Does it make any sense for people to get income tax refunds greater than the tax they paid? Not in my book.
I don't want any more incentives for people not to earn. I think a higher flat tax rate with a larger exemption would be better than a lower rate and lower exemption because it would encourage people to be more productive.
On this other stuff here is my primary concern. We need businesses to be located and expanded where US citizens provide the labor. That can be addressed through tax relief and regulatory relief. And thats it. I am including tort reform in the regulatory part. Education is a red herring. Someone needs to come up with a Laffer curve for education. There is a significant % of all population that have a talent cap in regard to this. We certainly need real education reform but this is a long term solution that won't address the short term crisis.
OTOH, if we reform the tax code and loosen regulations as they pertain to energy and manufacturing we can get back into the game in terms of business creation here.
For all the grief that Perry takes it is a fact that over a decade, and through two recessions Texas has outperformed the US as a whole in job creation by 14%. So there has to be more to it than smoke, mirrors and oil.
It seems to me that a flat tax would do more to get all the private money that is sitting around, hedged, off the sidelines than doing nothing but Kenesian spending. The problem with govenment spending is that as soon as it recedes you are subtracting from the economy. It just can't stimulate long term sustainable private growth to any significant extent. And we can't win a global competition for business on labor costs.
So AFAIK, the whole ballgame is a better tax and regulatory environment for business. How am I wrong here?
I don't want any more incentives for people not to earn. I think a higher flat tax rate with a larger exemption would be better than a lower rate and lower exemption because it would encourage people to be more productive.
On this other stuff here is my primary concern. We need businesses to be located and expanded where US citizens provide the labor. That can be addressed through tax relief and regulatory relief. And thats it. I am including tort reform in the regulatory part. Education is a red herring. Someone needs to come up with a Laffer curve for education. There is a significant % of all population that have a talent cap in regard to this. We certainly need real education reform but this is a long term solution that won't address the short term crisis.
OTOH, if we reform the tax code and loosen regulations as they pertain to energy and manufacturing we can get back into the game in terms of business creation here.
For all the grief that Perry takes it is a fact that over a decade, and through two recessions Texas has outperformed the US as a whole in job creation by 14%. So there has to be more to it than smoke, mirrors and oil.
It seems to me that a flat tax would do more to get all the private money that is sitting around, hedged, off the sidelines than doing nothing but Kenesian spending. The problem with govenment spending is that as soon as it recedes you are subtracting from the economy. It just can't stimulate long term sustainable private growth to any significant extent. And we can't win a global competition for business on labor costs.
So AFAIK, the whole ballgame is a better tax and regulatory environment for business. How am I wrong here?
yep, ever heard of tax credits, refunds, rebates and creditable deductions?
if you remit or pay taxes on your quarterly returns or on your withholding taxes but it turns out you suffered losses in total or that the amount due on taxes are less (as stock prices do rise and fall on a regular basis), you can claim a refund on the excess on what should have been lawfully due and properly paid. the government sends you a check or a certificate which you can use like real money (because it is real money anyway).
there's just no accurate way to determine the tax basis of the rise and fall of stock prices in the market. so if you treat appreciation of assets as earned income, you got a situation where you make the government pay back people for taxes that should not have been paid for the year. this system would have been probably disastrous around 2007-2008 when the stock markets collapsed.
Receiving a cash remittance for a capital loss would be insane and the bolded is why. That's why it doesn't make any goddamn sense, in practice.
You're wrong on a lot of points, but the one I want to point out is the most glaring:
You advocate rolling back regulations presumably, environmental and labor/health regulations to encourage a more competitive business environment compared to the world BUT at the same time you want to make torts harder, which basically opens up the door to externalities not being factored in the cost of business, but having a very real toll on our quality of life.
katipunero
Prince
yep, it does not make any sense.
but we have yet to hear from JR on this idea. i respect the guy and i'd like to hear what he has to say. he might be on to something.
That's the thing. Basically he rejects the private ownership of property and wants to confiscate it for communist collective purposes. That's the motivation behind the tort reform and deregulation movement. It's not like there's any reason to think it would benefit the economy, though.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,416
LOL here I am trying to have a strategy session on the great war....with the enemy.
look, I have voted for Republicans and Democrats at various times since I turned 18 but I just can't fully support any measure that at least doesn't take externalities into consideration.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
I have a question. How will America make up for the billions of dollars lost in tax revenue when they switch to a alternate flat tax system?
Currently you can deduct a limited amount of net loss and carry any losses that you weren't able to write off forward to future tax years. You can't end up with a negative taxable income though.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It can only be used to offset future capital gains though. it can't be used to reduce your future tax burden by $2K per year.
...and what would be a current "incentive" to stay unemployed, pray tell? All those homeless and unemployed beggars living the high life? And mathematically, what you are basically describing is a two-tiered graduated income tax system, not a flat tax.
Uh... no? I don't care if you tax me at 1% or 99%, if I can't sell the good I am producing, then I'm not making it. Demand for consumer goods is at a terrible low, and cutting taxes is not going to increase the incomes of the millions of unemployed--after all, zero income is zero income.
Also, what mrt144 said bears repeating. There is a reason why regulations exist.
You aren't taking into account the population growth rate in Texas, nor are you looking at where those new jobs are. People moving into the state need fuel, food, and other services, which increases demand. Businesses will move to the area and employ people to meet said demand.
An across-the-board federal tax cut or allowing companies to pollute like it's 1899 is not going to affect our overall population growth or distribution. We will hurt ourselves long-term with no appreciable short-term gain.
...that's pretty funny, and also not the mechanism via which Keynesian spending generates private-sector jobs.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Your against tax credit and refunds for poor people then?
It has to do with low income jobs created for illegal immigrants.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
If you want to make a flat tax, then make payroll taxes flat so that everyone pays them on the total of ones salary, rather than capping off. Bonus points if you figure out a way to issue payroll taxes against non-wage income for the investment class.
Until that happens, Ill be for a progressive tax.
Until that happens, Ill be for a progressive tax.
Similar threads
