17 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMilitary
Hard to believe, but here I am at 46, feeling like a Rip Van Winkle dinosaur. Although I didn't fall asleep, I'm rubbing my eyes in astonishment at the landscape.
Raise the prices on government services?! Am I the only one who is puking in my mouth over this idea, over the very concept? Can anyone name even ONE service the government runs which could ...[text shortened]... rices in the form of higher taxes?
As I see it, 1984 was off by only a few years...
Paying it's debts
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by telerionIf nobody (e.g., the IRS) is looking over their books, why should they send any money to the government? In the end of the day, a government has to have some agency that monitors and collects taxes.
The taxes are collected by the folks collecting the cash: the merchants and service providers.
Sure, but these guys have an incentive to cheat the government just as much as anyone else. If nobody (e.g., the IRS) is looking over their books, why should they send any money to the government? In the end of the day, a government has to have some agen ...[text shortened]... to support them. Even in those cases they are usually heavily subsidized.[/b]
Granted. Let's set up a monitoring agency for the express purpose of reporting and investigating the financial activities of merchants and service providers. Let's give each investigator 1000 businesses to cover the 30M or so businesses in the US. This puts the new agency at 30K employee base--- down from its present (estimated) 125K. At 1000 businesses each, the investigators will be able to devote nearly 50 minutes to every business every year.
Nearly all businesses have employees, and they're the ones currently reporting income to the IRS, right?
Is that enough? Maybe, maybe not. Given that most businesses will fall on the side of compliance, it's not likely there will be need to investigate anywhere near 30% of those 30M businesses--- let's call it 9M requiring further analysis. Now the 30K employees will be concentrating on 300 businesses: an average of nearly seven hours for all potential scalawags.
I don't think you are correct at all on the first count.
I might not be. My household brings in $100-$120K a year: how much am I allowed to spend? Well, all of it--- and more... if I'm foolish. At what point should I change my spending habits: first eviction? Second car repossession? Third foreclosure? The point is, I am the captain of my own financial future, and my success or failure thereof is wholly dependent upon me. Why should we allow the government to be any less fiscally prudent?
We could use your formula, and allow the people to speak. How much do we want to dedicate to governmental spending? 10%? 15%? More?
Besides don't you think that if installing subways in every 350K+ city were cost effective, you'd already see that happening regularly?
I live near Cleveland.
17 Apr 10
Originally posted by eljefejesusThat's a good point. I should have added that taxes should be raised across income classes. It would be harsh to raise the payroll tax for instance, but then again that would be the point.
Do not forget the disconnect between who gets taxed and who pays on-site at the point-of-sale for government services. Demand being downward sloping would matter more in a free market than in a government-distorted "tax here" and "subsidize there" scenario. Pay-as-you-go would tie political costs to political benefits. There should also be a requireme ...[text shortened]... t moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by telerionEven raising income on all classes, you noted previously that many lower bracket people are paying no net taxes, so until the situation gest to the point that this changes, and until the recipients or these benefits are not equally distrubuted either, you still have a bit of an incentives and allocation issue there.
That's a good point. I should have added that taxes should be raised across income classes. It would be harsh to raise the payroll tax for instance, but then again that would be the point.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by telerionIt would be VERY helpful if the US went back to the tax levels you were at 10 years ago. Don't think of them as tax hikes. think of it as returning back to normal after years of paying less than you should.
Bill Gale, a well-respected public finance economist at the Brookings Institute, gives quick interview on the need for tax reform. I think it would be a useful bit to watch for all of you, who like me, are concerned about the federal budget and enjoy discussing it here.
I do think he undersells the potential for reducing the big spending areas: defens ...[text shortened]... t we reform our spending. In light of this, tax reform is a very relevant and important topic.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHman, how do you fit all that air into your head?
[b]Abolish the IRS? Who's going to collect taxes?
The taxes are collected by the folks collecting the cash: the merchants and service providers.
Hmm . . . that doesn't leave many options.
Except for all those folks buying stuff.
I thought we were eliminating sales taxes (see 2).
Nope. We're throwing out the entire system and pu ...[text shortened]... s project since the interstate highway. [/b]
Yeah: how'd that work out for us?[/b]