By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It is hard for me to grasp a no tax policy, and our society to continue to function...I`m trying though....I personally find it offensive when I read about the people who make (not earn) a billion dollars in a year and pay only fifteen percent when I who earn way way less and pay at least forty percent.....I have seen it estimated that there are maybe four hundred billion dollars in taxes that are not collected....Back in the dark ages, the King and the Noblemen ( I wonder who named them Noblemen) owned everything and controlled everything, and the rest of us were `surfs`.....I sure wouldn`t want to go back to that sort of society....We have problems for sure, but nothing like that ... Tony ps Your communicating skills trump all except Jose who can beat you in Spanish , and lifestyle
Believe it or not, I like it. I may love it when I test drive.
Coming from you (German car lover), this is indeed very impressive, blkhemi! I appreciate your open mindedness.
Tag,
You've got to admit that still sounds strange. But yes I do love the GL and when I finally get all the rock salt off of it I'll post a pix. But the forecast this week looks bleak with some big snows possible. We haven't had a lot of snow here in central NJ, maybe 8" but it's all come in 1-2" annoyance storms that are causing constant rock salt drops. This week though could be a much larger hit.
Thank you. You are too kind :-)
The fairest tax, and indeed the only really fair tax, is a flat tax at 0% :-) People with more money always have more money to lobby for preferential tax codes.
A one-year 0% tax policy will work because there is market demand for dollar due to the need to service existing mountain of private sector debt. Okay, here's my bookish writing coming in :-) A fiat money not backed by anything would have zero value in the absence of market demand. Income tax was introduced in order to create market demand for the fiat money: a universal debt, the more you work or earn the more you owe, to the taxman. You need to earn the fiat money in order to pay the tax you owe, even if you are not into borrowing or debt otherwise. Both the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax amendment were passed in 1913. With the current situation, market demand for the fiat money can be maintained by the demand from debtors who need the fiat money to pay existing debt denominated in the fiat money, even if taxpayers no longer need the fiat money to pay taxes.
Well, I guess it does, but it's really terrific. We have come to the point where we no longer seem to be as polarized, and I think that is very cool.
So... what's changed? The vehicles?... or us?... or both?
TM
As someone who took a sabbatical from this forum and recently came back, looks to me like the German car owners got sick of the lack of reliability and the Japanese owners got sick of the lack of pizzazz. This includes me, who went from MB to Lexus and now planning on going back to MB. I'm hoping that an S550 will give me both reliability and drivability, but I probably am setting myself up for a disappointment.
Tony,
There will never be a no-tax policy in the United States, so don't waste your breath trying to grasp it. And, I find your reference to the dark ages to be interesting. I think it is obvious that our tax policies historically have been pathetic. Our earliest chapters in our World history and our American history books show problems with taxation from our country's earliest days, and well before that throughout parts of the world. Wars have been fought due to unfair taxation.
When it comes to taxation, there are so many different points of view. Unfortunately, the entire concept of taxation is viewed differently by many citizens and our elected representatives, who too often don't even represent the public that put them in office.
Beyond the conceptual differences, we see... even right here on this forum by our own good friend, Mr. Wiseman... the very idea of manipulating and changing the tax structure as a means to effect selective change upon the national economic picture.
In other words, the entire premise of using tax policy in that manner is indicative of a serious issue within our society. Tax policy should be a fundamental and integral and fair policy... deeply rooted with meaning, as is our Bill of Rights, for example. Our United States tax policy should have merit and integrity... but instead it is manipulated by politicians. Every time a new political party is elected, and every time there is a major bump in the economy, there is the idea of more manipulation to the tax policy, even as we see here on this forum.
Often when revenues fall short due to poor planning or policies, the politicians turn to taxes for the solution. That is an outrage. When the economy is suffering, suddenly the idea of manipulating taxes comes up again and again. It would be better to have a fair tax policy in place to begin with, and then deal with the economic problems themselves head on, and not turn to tax manipulation to solve the problems that should be more appropriately addressed at their root cause.
A flat tax, IMO, of a modest a fair percentage, should be the best approach, and it should be something that is off limits to politicians as a means for them to manipulate the economy. As I said, economic issues should be dealt with at their own root levels.
(I don't mean this to sound strange to some, but sometimes I think that the Bible has given us a guide, and that 10% is an appropriate amount of flat tax, just as a non-variable 10% is supposed to be what is given to the Church.)
Taxes are not given to the goverment to do with as it pleases. The goverment is responsible to allocate that money as the people see fit. This is another area that I see needs to be addressed in our modern society. Our government nowadays seems to be more of a military structure than anything else. But regardless, our government has become too seperated and out-of-touch from the people it should represent, and that needs to improve, IMO.
To sum up, taxation needs to be a policy that is fundamental and deeply-rooted with fairness, simplicity, integrity and purpose as its underlying principal, and is off-limits to the ever-changing whims of politicians and their flavor or favor of the year. Further, economic issues should be dealt with at their root causes and not by the political manipulation of tax policy to shortcut or circumvent dealing with those issue themselves.
OK... fire away.
TM
Oh well... dream on.
TM
Better yet, how about Cadillac and Lincoln make cars that have the reliability of the Lexus, the luxury of a Benz, and the drivability of a BMW. Now I know I am dreaming.
... and the fuel economy of the Prius!
TM
So is it a luxury car if it needs to be fixed more often? Is it a luxury car if you have to drive it to the dealer and handle the hassle just like the civic and camary buyers - or does luxury mean the dealer picks up and drops off your car?
My definition revolves more around a car that feels great to drive, looks good, and has great features to play with and also has a bit of heritige with the brand to somewhat justify the high price we pay.
I think you are making a fine choice with the S550.
I'd agree with your post 100% if we had a constant money supply under a sound money system. Under a fiat money system like we have, the government has two sources of revenue: fiat priting and explicit taxes. The magnitude of the recent bailouts from both the Treasury and the FED should illustrate just how much greater the former source is compared to the later source: more than a year's tax revenue was printed in less than a quarter. Even in normal times, the government doesn't wait for tax revenue before spending; instead, money is printed and spent, then taxes are collected to shore up the fiat money's value (by creating a market demand for the fiat money, to pay taxes).
No, I'm not suggesting 0% tax forever (not yet anyway :-) However, given our current circumstances where interest rate policy has hit the 0% wall, monetary printing by the FED and by the Treasury is quite inevitable (that's why the fiat money system was invented, the ease of printing). Instead of the fighting over who gets the newly printed money, a fight that will inevitably lead to more and more wasteful spending, ultimately the most wasteful of them all, military spending in the name of "national security," then look for an enemy to fight, like the last go-around in Germany, Japan and the United States in the 1930's, when the major economies embraced Keynesianism to the hilt. The fundamental reason behind that process was very simple: government make-work programs drove up material and labor cost, so companies that made products and services according to consumer desire became even less viable. People could see their real standard of living decline despite what the GNP numbes would say (GNP counted a battleship the same as 10,000 cars). So eventually the politicians had to come up with a distraction from domestic misery, and a way to justify the looting by the ruling elite.
I propose to use the new printing (which would be printed anyway if not more in bailoutomics) to replace tax revenue altogether. Then there's a better chance of things that people want get produced, thereby enhancing standard of living for all, and get us out of the depression. After that, the taxes can come back gradually, proportionally unchanged if has to be just to avoid another tax fight. Yes, you are correct, tax policies are inherently economic manipulations; that's why I suggested temporary suspension of such manipulations altogether. I'm not suggesting modifications to tax code in terms of the proportional composition of various components, just a temporary suspension of all taxes.
With the massive layoff's coming soon, the government will have to print an enormous amount of money for unemployment. The unemployment agencies in many states are already having computer glitches due to overloading. Why continue to penalize people for working (tax) and rewarding people for not working (unemployment benefits), when the two amounts of money are comparable, with the former shrinking and the latter growing; bailing out failed companies is a form of unemployment payment. If this continues, the unemployment payments will be extended due to political pressure, thanks to the perverse incentive not to work, then we will face a real risk of dollar collapse (a la Weimar, due to paying Ruhr workers not to work, in protest of French occupation).
Since you mentioned American revolution, the money and tax issue is very badly taught in schools. The fundamental cause was not taxation, but monetary contraction: the Currency Act of 1764 banned colonies from printing money in order to exert London's control over the colonies. Here's what Bejamin Franklin had to say in his autobiography:
"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and the depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed . . .
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other materials had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inablity of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Severe monetary contraction over long period of time is politically unsustainable. Instead of reflation through giving money to parts of the economy that don't work thereby distorting the economy further from consumer desire, an across the board tax suspension would result in more production of things that people do want . . . making the economy more vibrant instead of turning it into central planning. (Short-term) Zero-tax policy has precedences in many parts of the world, especially when countries tried to pull their economies out of generational malaise in creating "special economic zones," which were usually special because they had zero tax policies.
I know, it sounds a bit strange, eh? But I have to give credit where credit is due. For Lexus to give both models additional power while making notable strides in FE, that deserves credit even from me, one of the most staunch critics of Lexus. I am really anticipating a test drive of the RX450h. Even though my wife bought the GLK, Im sure we could find a place for it..
Just yesterday we were talking about giving the GLK to my daughter and son-in-law as their RS4 and 911 Turbo are really not pratical for my grandchildren. And as most of yoou know, my wife is one MB's most loyal customers, dating back to her early years in Dutchland. Convincing her to buy a Lexus will be harder than getting her to buy the ill-fated Jag(damn I miss that car).
My point is simple. And, your post proves it at length.
And while I do I like your writing skills, as many of us do here... I don't like the idea of tax manipulation by politicians.
As I posted... When revenues fall short due to poor planning or policies, the politicians turn to taxes for the solution. That is an outrage. When the economy is suffering, suddenly the idea of manipulating taxes comes up again and again. It would be better to have a fair tax policy in place to begin with, and then deal with the economic problems themselves head on, and not turn to tax manipulation to solve the problems that should be more appropriately addressed at their root cause.
As you even posted, your awesome-sounding and inspiring idea of 0% tax would only be temporary. The reason is obvious. A policy like that, as an extreme example, of course, would have no ability to sustain itself over time, and would simply create a whole new round of problems that would then need to be further addressed, and then the politicians would be tinkering and wrenching with our "free market economy" once again.
Logically speaking and proven historically, tax manipulation, therefore, just opens the door for political intervention, and it generally causes a whole new round of additional problems with the economy, which then have to be further manipulated. It's a vicious cycle.
The government has tools to which the economy can be massaged, but there should be a limit to the government's role anyway. IMO, the more government plays with the economy, the worse it gets. If our governement wants to help the economy, then it should set up appropriate rules, conditions, regulations and parameters that give our economy a healthy domestic and global arena in which to function with vitality.
Our government should have a balanced budget requirement as well. Abuse on Wall street should be prosecuted. International trade should be have fair parameters and conditions. Banking should be accountable.
Take a look at some state's sales tax rates and it further demonstrates how politicians continue to look at tax manipulation for the answer . Over the years, some of those rates have inched up higher and higher and still higher. It's pathetic and outrageous.
So... I still advocate my preference... which is a fundamentally sound tax policy that is off limits to political manipulation, and I have no doubt that such a policy could easily enough fully integrate into our existing system... and I also prefer that the REAL problems (such as balancing the budget, abuse on Wall Street, banking irregularities, etc.) are finally dealt with once and for all at their root level.
TM
Regards,
OW
That's a good point. I have typically, though not as a rule, negotiated the inclusion of a long-term extended service agreement with many of my car purchases.
My Jag, for example, has an 84-month/ 84,000-mile service agreement. So far, the car has been the most trouble-free car I've ever owned. But, I didn't want to take the risk, and who knows... it could still pull a fast one on me.
I don't know how the rest of you feel about them, but personally I think those extended service agreements are a great way to go. But, I never pay the asking price. Those policies have a lot of markup that is very negotiable, from my experience.
TM
P/S pump blew, A/C compressor failed.
Regard,
OW
But here's the problem:
Back in the 1960s and 1970s Alan Greenspan the academic was a staunch libertarian who believed strongly in the gold standard and also he was a staunch critic of fiat money policies?
Brian Harper who is now the Prime Minister of Canada was a staunch libertarian economist.
What do the two have in common? Both became politicians whose actions contradicted every libertarian ideal they had believed in.
The reality for all libertarian politicians is the legacy of government debts and obligations that cannot be swept easily under the rug. USA will require hefty taxes and inflationary monetary policies to just service the trillions of government debt that is being created right now at its fastest pace in history. The more in debt we are, the less flexibility we will have in terms of having economic freedoms like low taxes. And that is why libertarian politicians are beginning to resemble all those other pork barrel politicians .
What is the argument for not cutting taxes substantially? More deficits and increased debts (and yes I am well aware of the Supply Side arguments but that is for another post). Cutting taxes may cause more confidence but unfortunately it will also cause more debts r. That is the last thing we need right now since debts (both government and private) have increased faster than economic growth for three decades now. And as you know debts increasing faster than the economy for a long period of time is not sustainable since the end result is insolvency. And right now the US economy cannot afford such risks.
TM
Yes Gary that figure is scary. Corporate defaults are going to increase substantially but unlike historical times there is that 15 trillion $ CDS figure. Scary indeed when you consider that regulations for counterparty collateral is practiacally non-existent and margin calls are dependent on each individual contract. The potential counterparty risk is catostrophic to say the least. CDS counterparty risk is the reason AIG is a nationalized institution..
A CDS Clearinghouse may be the solution for future CDS contracts. But unfortuately it is too late for the outstanding 30 trillion dollars of contracts.
I would love it if my BMW was driveable on most days than random days.
Reliability of a Lexus and fuel economy of a Prius ?
That in fact would be a Prius. No sacrifices involved there.
I agree with you very much on the long term views. My zero-tax proposal however is entirely short-term, akin to your earlier point about the need to "print sh*t load of money now!" I presume you were not talking about printing loads money cotinuously for the long future either. Likewise, I'm suggesting something extremely short term to right the ship. It has the virtue of:
(1) Quick. Quicker than even government's ability to print up and mail "rebate" checks, and there is little chance for fraud or waste as the government is not chopping trees or mailing out anything.
(2) Massive. Withholding amounts to 33% of paycheck; that means an instant 50% increase in take-home pay, starting this week!
(3) Avoid Central Planning. The government won't be picking and choosing which industry to support. Government can't pick winners; the losers pick the government for support. The fighting and lobbying to come up with bailout plans for various industries will take a long time, and as some companies and industries get the bailouts, their competitors and alternatives will need bailouts too. Like the Italian soft cheese makers asking for bailouts after the hard cheese makers got the bailout and bid up milk prices. There is no end to central planning failures like that.
I'm not even talking about adjusting tax code to a "fair tax." Any such talks will take a long time, and won't take effect until at least the 2010 tax year. I'm not opposed to talk about that either when "we" have more time. For now however, the quickiest way to put massive amount of liquidity into the economy without turning it entirely socialist central planning is a massive tax cut proportioned on current components so there is no need to debate which tax to be cut or raised; they all get cut proportionately.
In effect, it's your "injecting a massive amount of liquidity immediately" idea by not taking the money out of the economy via taxation.
IMHO, massive monetary printing is going to take place regardless, and the government can probably get away with it in terms of total monetary supply because massive amount of debt is being destroyed in defaults. Our money is debt, two sides of the same coin. Because the private sector is not creating new money (people are deathly afraid of new borrowing, and banks are reluctant to lend), the massive new money borrowing and printing will be coming from the government sector. As the Keynesians are already making noises about spending on anything and everything, I'm afraid, after failures in bailing out bad companies and building infrastructure (all of which are doomed to failure as government purchase will bid up input factor cost for producers who are not getting the money directly; the same reason why central planning fail), that "anything and everything" will become massive military spending as there won't be rational discussion allowed when "national security" is involved. Followed by finding an enemy to fight a big war.
If that massive government spending is to take place any way, instead of bailing out failed companies and building boondongles, a far more effective way to "inject money into the economy" is avoiding taking money out of it via taxation! That may actually lead to more products and services that people do want, so the standards of living can improve, and a major war can be avoided.
The thing that is tricky about earning money, is that after working and sacraficing, ---the funds come in a big rush---, then taper back off, until the next rush...The progressive tax that kicks in takes a large whack which makes it hard to insulate against the slowdown....As you say, get the right combination af tax levies , then address the financial problems head on, and not by changing everything tax wise around.....The abuses that are inherit in a society that is not governed lead to the outrageous excesses we see on a daily basis with the special rules and taxes being created for individual excess.....I would guess we are in for a hard landing in the coming months ---and hope I am wrong--- Tony
She said, 'I want something shiny that goes from 0 to 150 in about 3 seconds.'
I bought her a scale.
And then the fight started...
That's for you LD!
Regards,
OW
I agree with you very much on the long term views. My zero-tax proposal however is entirely short-term
Wiseman... I am glad to hear that you agree very much with my long term views. They are based in reality and could be be implemented over time, unlike your proposal which is not based in reality. Please don't take this wrong, as I know you have gone to incredible length to present a great record-breaking case for it. But whether anyone likes or dislikes, or agrees or disagrees with the credible theory behind your zero-tax proposal, debating it at such length is merely an exercise, and a futile one at best... because the chance of a zero-tax becoming reality is, well... quite frankly, also zero.
BTW, I am going to try to focus you a little bit on cars now... I think that it's a good guess that you could make a great case for your automotive opinions as well as you do regarding your opinions on taxes and the economy. You could quite possible start a terrific discussion here on a topic related to automobiles. (But don't bring up leasing vs. buying... LOL!) So... for starters, what's your view on hybrid technology?
TM
Thank you Tony! I do thank our friend Wiseman for inspiring me to post at some length, which I haven't done for a while.
In my advertising business... the ad message needs to be precise and targeted. It needs to quickly get attention, inspire, inform, and motivate to action. It follows the "less is more" philosophy.... if you know what I mean.
So... posting those lengthy posts was a nice exercise, and I am so glad you agree with my perspective.
Thanks again.
TM
That in fact would be a Prius. No sacrifices involved there.
HA! That's so true. Now, if we could only somehow add that magical BMW performance to the Prius... :shades:
TM
Nope; I'm afraid in present time Dewey is totally refusing BMW charms
Burnt out, impermeable, overwhelmed. :sick:
Regards,
Jose
Very true. My W12 is covered through Audi for 75months/150,000 miles. I paid 1950 for bumper to bumper coverage, of which replacing the fan for the climate control and the rear fridge paid for itself.
I'm not quite sure I agree with leasing a German car v. owning Japanese. My most problematic German car just so happened to be the most problematic Benz ever, an '01 W-220 S500. Multiple issues with the Airmatic suspension and all of the electrical gremlins caused me to ditch the car after 13 months and 8K miles. Fast forward, and I've had an S4 Cab(trouble-free) that I passed on to my daughter who traded it in impeccable condition on her current RS4, my current W12 that has had some issues, though not having to do with driveability, the S8 that was a hell of a car and trouble-free(save for the occasional snoot from the local cops and younger crowd), the 335i which has been largely troublefree save for brakes that needed changing prematurely(tab picked up by BMW), and my current R8, which doesn't even register in this conversation.
But the Japanese cars historically have better reliability than most cars, but the world now thinks Ford makes the most reliable cars. Go figure!!
Thank you. You are exactly right. WWII was preceded by major economies pursueing big infrastructure programs as ways to lift their countries out of the Great Depression. Autobahn, Hoover Dam and TVA, none of them worked. The prices of steel, cement and labor were bid up by those projects, so businesses that used them as input were further squeezed. The governments gave these new failing companies contracts to build battleshps, tanks, etc.. The rest as they say is history. Standards of living did not improve despite GNP numbers going up. A battleship really did not improve living standards as much as 10,000 cars. Global GNP numbers went even higher when major cities were bombed into smitherings, as all the boms, airplanes, crew salary, anti-aircraft guns, shells, firefighting equipment, rebuilding of shelters etc. etc. were all GNP. Such is macroeconomics model that equates government assigned value vs. consumer choice in a competitive market.
Yes, it is hard to visualize running a government on money creation alone; took me a while to figure it out in the modern fiat context. It's relatively easy to do in the commodity money context: Whamponoas did it on whampon shells; Athenians built a glorious civilization, even an sea-faring empire, on its silver mines. There is market demand for money, so manufacturing money is a service that can fund a government; many midieval european kingdoms derived a major part of their income on seiniorage: making coins. In our fiat context, how can one print up trillions of dollars new money to fund our government without debasing the fiat money. It's not do-able unless there is market demand that large to soak up the new money. That's where income tax comes in: people have to "buy up" that much fiat money with their labor and goods to pay taxes. The progressive income tax is designed to match monetary expansion: the faster money supply expands in the private sector, the more people hit the higher tax brackets, the more money is drained out of the system via income tax.
In our current special circumstance, trillions are needed to bailout failing companies means money/debt destruction is in that magnitude. That monetary demand is large enough to replace the monetary demand created by the tax system mentioned above. Instead of keep draining liquidity out of the system via taxes ($1.5-2 trillion), and at the same time let the government selectively injecting that amount or more into failing companies, thereby replacing productive forces in the economy with unproductive ones, it would make more sense to just skip the tinkering and frictional loss by the government central planning. The existing debt is creating enough of a demand to maintain dollar value. That's the same force that made dollar appreciate dramaticly in the last few months despite the dramatic economic slow down and massive government money creation.
Money is a convoluted subject, but rapidly becoming a subject that we all need to know if we are to avoid a replay of the 30's and 40's. A quick search online for "fractional reserve banking" is a good starting point on understanding how our monetary system works. There are even papers written on how the federal government can be funded without income tax at all for the long term! That's not what I'm talking about at this point though.
$1950 for 75-months / 150,000-miles of bumper-to-bumper coverage on your W12 is a steal of a deal!!
TM
I really thought so, especially since they were wanting upwards of 3-3500 for it. My main reason for getting it was surprisingly, the MMI. Like Tony, I thought mine would eventually give me problems, but it has so far only needed reflashing to get my car out of the "Lift" position I selected to comee over a snow bank. My Audi rep. definitely earns his keep and works things out for me. He helped me get the R8 I wanted faster than I thought possible.
the sun/moonroof, what's the point if it can't open? I knew this going in & would have nixed it were it an option.
Upon finding the most optimal driving position, my vision is blocked to fuel gauge & critical speedometer data. Have to learn to turn my head, ha!
Visibility is far less than I'm accustomed to, but also haven't bought a new car in a while, so high beltlines being a safety issue could have a lot to do with it. I know driving my older car made me feel like I was in an equarium for all to see. There are blindspot issues with this car, & I'm glad it has blind spot warning. All in all, I like the snug feeling & tight sightlines, keeps me more attune to what's happening.
I appreciate the side-view mirror blinkers, but absolutely hate the turn signals in the rear are red, just like the brake lights. That HAS to be a safety issue, no?
I'll be back w/ much more +'s for sure. & pics. Was a sloppy weekend here unfortunately...
My wife does not need this powerful of a vehicle, but due to the fact that we live in snow country, she wants AWD. Unfortunately, the new Prius does not offer AWD. Otherwise, she would go with the Prius which will also be a technological marvel.
As they say you are very wise. I agree wholeheatedly with you points specifically as related to a temporary suspension of income withholding. However, there eventually has to be a reformation of the tax code in general. With at least 40% being with held from paychecks and the many hidden taxes we pay, one cannot say we are undertaxed in this country. Though I do not agree with the politics of Huckabee, his proposal of eliminating payroll tax and initiating a different form of taxation should not be discounted. Maybe there is a happy medium there someplace. But if taxes continue to increase in terms of income with holding, plus the hidden taxes we pay daily then the ecomony suffers overall and honestly the goverment is not going to be flush with cash as some might assume. It will be wasted someplace.
For a while, BMW was one of the darlings of this forum... but at the rate we are going, you might be the only one here left with a BMW. :surprise:
TM
As I`v acclimated my self over the last few years, I forget what it is like coming from the Lexus to the Audi....The rear head rests are awfully high, and are hard to see around, but I quickly got use to that...and the instruments are rarely watched, other than when I start the car, so imo just keep your comfortable seating arrangement
I agree with you entirely, and with Tag too, regarding the need for a less complex and lighter tax system in the long run. IMHO, if and when we get this zero-tax shock therapy running for just one year, people will realize that the overall tax burden can be much lighter even in normal times and still have a government that "gives us the services that we need," therefore changing the baseline of subsequent tax rate discussions dramaticly. People's fear of not getting necessary service if tax rate drops will go away. That's how temporary zero-tax policies succeeded everywhere it tried when countries around the world came out socialist central planning economies to embrace market economy.
I'm usually 6 monts to 18 months too early. I used to get upset over people not seeing my "brilliant ideas" and "perceptive truth" ;-) After a few cycles of seeing people going from getting turned off by my crazy ideas to seeing the same ideas as "it was obvious and has always been obvious, who would think otherwise" a year or two later, I'm older and wiser now :-) I don't mind at all other people taking my ideas and run with them. I'm a details monger, and my writings are not easy to read for most casual readers. It will take people with a different background to communicate the same ideas in a succinct fashion and sell it to the masses in actionable forms. I just want to toss my idea out there. Hopefully, some more effective writers will pick that back up at the corners of their brain someday and run with it.
You are very welcome. I appreciate your attention to my scribbles :-) Have a good evening.
IMO, that makes you a prime candidate for "think tank" situations. The only question is, just what field do you find yourself best suited? For example, some guys are awesome in meetings that brainstorm ideas for new high-tech gadgets, while others are good at brainstorming TV commercials, and still others are able to brainstorm political campaigns, and there are many, many other areas. After all these years, what would you say is your best area of focus?
TM
BTW, three of the five companies are related to art design and custom manufacturing. My primary field of study was actually in engineering, with secondaries in art design and economics.
Selective tax rebates are attempt to do a little of the same thing, but without the "relative inequality" (meaning non-progressiveness) of the zero tax approach.
Intellectually interesting and well-presented, Wiseman, but not just not politically realistic IMHO.
Very good point. Suspend witholding, not just income tax, but also the 15+% payroll tax (employer still pay his half, but to the employee instead of to the government). Very few jobs in the US have base pay over $200k. People making more than that are usually receiving additional as bonuses or option vestment or owners' profit. All these latter types of income are not affected by withholding suspension as quickly because tax on them are not usually paid until quarter end if not tax year end. More importantly, those additional good-times income are being massacred in the economic down turn anyway. The biggest of my companies is facing an 80% decline in profit (as revenue dropped by half), and it is very typical of consumer related small business. This kind of income decline is probably more severe than any employee who has not lost the job altogether can possibly have. Economic downturn like this is fundamentally a very levelling experience: a 50% increase after an 80% decline only brings it to 30% of the year-ago level! Whereas someone on a steady salary would be taking home much much more than a year-ago.
Even the poorest folks, so long as they have jobs, will see their paycheck go up by close to 20% (the 15+% on the 85-%). More importantly, the restaurants will be full again, and the domestic workers will not be laid off as people in the higher income level have more disposable income. Speaking of disposable income, because the lower income households usually have lower per centage of their income as disposable income, the smaller per centage increase in total take-home pay would still translate into high per centage of increase in disposable income increase. For example, a person who pays no income tax has 10% of his normal take-home pay as disposable income, the close to 20% increase from suspending payroll witholding would translate into tripling of disposable income! For those literally living pay check to pay check, that means no need to be ripped off by the check cashing place this month, and breaking the cycle of impoverishment.
After a year, when the taxes come back in increments (say 10% of the pre amount, then 20%, etc..), the progressiveness will stay in the taxes just as before, just with the overall tax amount reduced by 90%, then 80%, etc.. That is, of course, until any long term tax reform that Tag and Reality mentioned.
I'm not against sending tax "rebate," but based on past experience, it would take much longer and be much much more costly in terms the physical printing and distribution, and susceptible to fraud and people not getting them.
You raise a very good point about the perceived "non-progressiveness." It is however an inherent problem in any tax cut given how "progressive" the existing tax schedule is. That's why I think the payroll tax suspension has to be in there, and the employer should continue to pay his 7.5+% but to the employee instead; plus, the cut has to be substantial, so even the lower brackets can feel substantial reduction and hence massive increase in disposable income. Yes, I agree, this idea is still early, but give the politicians another few months to flail around as the economy deteriorate further after a little bounce in the next couple weeks, a tripling of disposable income will be an attractive idea even for people in the lowest income bracket.
BTW, it would not be "giving money from the poor to the rich" any more than spending the same amount of money on bailing out large corporations, probably much less so.
It tilts/props open a tad. It's so large, & with the shape of the roof the way it is, impossible for it to go anywhere. It does have a shield that will stay shut unless a passenger really wants to stare upward...