The Compromise - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#31 12-07-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Well the current tax rate is criminal, as I have said many times a flat tax would be the most fair way of doing it, but that will never happen.

A consumption tax would be better because it would encourage saving; that's not going to happen either.

Hatterasguy · #32 12-07-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Yeah, like the "tons of jobs" the last 780+ billion spent created!

We need to reinvest in this country. For starters we could start building a large high speed rail setup like China is. 300mph trains would certainly help things and create a few jobs.

Hatterasguy · #33 12-07-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

A consumption tax would be better because it would encourage saving; that's not going to happen either.

The economy is driven on consumption. The $50k and under group needs to spend every last penny they have, and they do.

#34 12-07-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The economy is driven on consumption. The $50k and under group needs to spend every last penny they have, and they do.

A flat tax would also be regressive.

Hatterasguy · #35 12-07-2010, 08:56 PM

Yes but at least it would be fair. The problem now is you have a large chunk that pays nothing but derives benefits from the system. Hence they are more inclined to vote for more benefits since they are "free."

OTOH you have someone paying 30% which IMHO is criminal, because others are voting it out of their pocket.

A flat tax would make everyone pay their fair share.

buffa98 · #36 12-07-2010, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

A flat tax would also be regressive.

If I understand you correctly- A flat would be regressive because the people making 1 million would pay 100K in fed tax. Which is 10 times what the person making 100K. So even though the tax rate is the same for all it is still regressive?
Not trying to argue just making sure I am on the same page.

rsmartin · #37 12-07-2010, 09:01 PM

I support the Fair Tax www.fairtax.org with my mouth and my money.

Maybe someday....

MS Fowler · #38 12-07-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

We need to reinvest in this country. For starters we could start building a large high speed rail setup like China is. 300mph trains would certainly help things and create a few jobs.

Unless government "make work" projects are driven by the consumer, they fail. Look at the money "invested" in inner city rail transit systems. People only use them ( generally) as transportation of last resort. Even so, in most cases they continually run an operating deficit.
If there was a real need for theses systems, a private company would invest their own capital. Here, in Balt, there are many examples of projects that someone convinced the city government would be profitable, so the city went ahead and funded them. Boondoggles all. If those projects were really viable some entrepreneur would invest his own, or his group's money so they could reap the windfall profits. That doesn't happen because the projects are losers. The city taxpayers foot the bill so some friend of someone can get rich.

Not a good use of taxes.

Skid Row Joe · #39 12-07-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

If I understand you correctly- A flat would be regressive because the people making 1 million would pay 100K in fed tax. Which is 10 times what the person making 100K. So even though the tax rate is the same for all it is still regressive?
Not trying to argue just making sure I am on the same page.

I seriously doubt he can explain nor justify that one to you or anybody.

Flat taxes are not regressive.

Progressive taxes are regressive.

Billybob · #40 12-07-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

That's why the less productive need to be taxed at 10% to share the burden with the heavily productive that are already paying Federal income taxes each and every year.

Share the tax bill, if you will.

No representation without taxation!!!!!!!

Hatterasguy · #41 12-07-2010, 09:06 PM

The rail system between DC, NY City, and Boston is heavily used and a 300mph 21st century train would increase its use even more while providing a technological showcase for how great America is. The benefit would be sticking it to the airlines and reducing congestion on I95.

Like the Golden Gate bridge, Empire State building, and Hoover dam did in the 30's.

The money could also be used for another moon shot moment, except instead of going to the moon the rallying cry should be energy self sufficient before the decade is out, 2020.

IMHO this is a far better use of the money than popping goat herders in Iraq who are trying to IED our guys.

#42 12-07-2010, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

If I understand you correctly- A flat would be regressive because the people making 1 million would pay 100K in fed tax. Which is 10 times what the person making 100K. So even though the tax rate is the same for all it is still regressive?
Not trying to argue just making sure I am on the same page.

I suspect that the person making $1M would still find plenty of ways to shelter more of his income than the person making $100k, just like he does now. A progressive tax rate does offset that to a certain extent. A "pure" flat tax would not be regressive, but that would be impossible to implement.

#43 12-07-2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Unless government "make work" projects are driven by the consumer, they fail. Look at the money "invested" in inner city rail transit systems. People only use them ( generally) as transportation of last resort. Even so, in most cases they continually run an operating deficit.
If there was a real need for theses systems, a private company would invest their own capital. Here, in Balt, there are many examples of projects that someone convinced the city government would be profitable, so the city went ahead and funded them. Boondoggles all. If those projects were really viable some entrepreneur would invest his own, or his group's money so they could reap the windfall profits. That doesn't happen because the projects are losers. The city taxpayers foot the bill so some friend of someone can get rich.

Not a good use of taxes.

Actually, I had a chance to ride the denver light rail system last week (to get to the amtrak station without driving through rush hour). It was very efficient and was being heavily used during rush hour. This system was built over the last 10-15 years and is still being expanded.

When I lived in boston (30 years ago) the subway system was definitely the quickest way to get around. Mass transit works if it's implemented well.

tbomachines · #44 12-07-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Look at the money "invested" in inner city rail transit systems. People only use them ( generally) as transportation of last resort. Even so, in most cases they continually run an operating deficit.

Not the cities I've been in. Paying for rail is usually easier than having a car and/or paying for parking. Many of my colleagues don't even own a car and just use regional rail....

#45 12-07-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Not the cities I've been in. Paying for rail is usually easier than having a car and/or paying for parking. Many of my colleagues don't even own a car and just use regional rail....

My daughter (who doesn't drive) just moved into an apartment near the light rail system so she can use it as her primary transportation.