Jump to content

Greedy, Grasping, Greedy, Greedy, Greedy Ebay-o-rama-Supreme Court Backs Thebes


thebes

Recommended Posts

On 6/1/2018 at 6:25 PM, Schu said:

Single federal tax would take care of the whole shebang.

 

Impose a higher and more progressive federal income tax (the fair form of taxation), and ELIMINATE state income tax, state sales tax, corporation tax, property tax, permit fees, etc.  Ban any additional kinds of taxes -- increases in revenue collected would have to come in the form of federal income tax.  Let the federal government distribute funds to smaller entities via a minimally bureaucratic, computer assisted, fine tuned, reviseable, set of formulae.  If this worked, there would be no such thing as a poor or rich school district, etc.  Corporations would not be taxed, but individuals -- including CEOs -- would be taxed more, and if they get bonuses while their companies decline, those bonuses would be less offensive than now, because they would be taxed at a higher rate than presently.  I would think this would all be pro-business, pro-mom & pop, pro-middle class, and make life easier for the poor.  The range and standard deviation of income after taxes would be lower, but the revenue could be arranged to be higher.   Of course, this wouldn't be easy, and would have to be carefully thought out, empirically tested, and ratified.  Very large changes have been instituted before, such as the imposition of income tax itself in 1913 (and once before, under Lincoln), the transition from a 12 hour, 6 day work week, to an 8 hour 5 day one, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

There would have to be a mechanism whereby the seller has to decide which tax category applies (e.g., bare yarn vs. yarn for sweaters).  That could be quite a mess.

Excellent point and absolutely is a mess.  Once the item is entered into a program the business should be good to go, as they should know their own business and know what item goes into which tax category.  Still, confusing and messy, as you say.

 

Expanding on my earlier concern every business has to file quarterly estimated taxes, even if they don't have any sales to that state in a particular quarter.  The problem is if you don't file your return with NO sales, the state(s) will STILL assess the business a penalty. 

 

Can you imagine how quick a mom and pop internet business can get in trouble if for some reason they don't file their quarterlies and  get fined by FIFTY states? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, garyrc said:

 

Impose a higher and more progressive federal income tax (the fair form of taxation), and ELIMINATE state income tax, state sales tax, corporation tax, property tax, permit fees, etc.  Ban any additional kinds of taxes -- increases in revenue collected would have to come in the form of federal income tax.  Let the federal government distribute funds to smaller entities via a minimally bureaucratic, computer assisted, fine tuned, reviseable, set of formulae.  If this worked, there would be no such thing as a poor or rich school district, etc.  Corporations would not be taxed, but individuals -- including CEOs -- would be taxed more, and if they get bonuses while their companies decline, those bonuses would be less offensive than now, because they would be taxed at a higher rate than presently.  I would think this would all be pro-business, pro-mom & pop, pro-middle class, and make life easier for the poor.  The range and standard deviation of income after taxes would be lower, but the revenue could be arranged to be higher.   Of course, this wouldn't be easy, and would have to be carefully thought out, empirically tested, and ratified.  Very large changes have been instituted before, such as the imposition of income tax itself in 1913 (and once before, under Lincoln), the transition from a 12 hour, 6 day work week, to an 8 hour 5 day one, etc.

You would have to amed the US Constitution for the federal government to collect a tax and redistribute it to lical school districts, cities, counties, etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

You would have to amed the US Constitution for the federal government to collect a tax and redistribute it to lical school districts, cities, counties, etc 

There is already an amendment to collect the tax.  What would have to change is laws regarding all other taxes and the distribution of said monies.  I am not in favor of greater federal power over what used to be separate states.  We are already seeing the dangers of over-riding federal power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

It only applies if done by a business.

It depends on the buyers State.  

 

Buy a used car from a private seller in Texas and go register it in Texas.  Or even buy it in OK and bring it to TX and register it, you are going to pay sales tax.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dwilawyer said:

It depends on the buyers State.  

 

Buy a used car from a private seller in Texas and go register it in Texas.  Or even buy it in OK and bring it to TX and register it, you are going to pay sales tax.

 

 

That is a concession to the automobile industry, pork as they say.  Buy a piece of furniture from a private seller.  Glory be, you don't have to register it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

There is already an amendment to collect the tax.  What would have to change is laws regarding all other taxes and the distribution of said monies.  I am not in favor of greater federal power over what used to be separate states.  We are already seeing the dangers of over-riding federal power.

Thw 16th amendment allows for an income tax so long as it isn't apportioned.  In order to use "formulae" to apportion as suggested by Garyrc you would have to amend or you would run afoul of the d8rect tax clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Thw 16th amendment allows for an income tax so long as it isn't apportioned.  In order to use "formulae" to apportion as suggested by Garyrc you would have to amend or you would run afoul of the d8rect tax clause.

Interesting, because by definition income taxes are apportioned if you consider the way funds are distributed to the states.  Does Texas get the same Medicaid money that New Mexico does per capita?  Even worse, West Virginia gets one third more money per capita than California.  So in that case there is no apportion, but rather the reverse.  But you say there is no constitutional basis for any of this?  I get it, but if so why has it been going on for years?

In other words, if apportionment is unequal now, why does it take constitutional action to make it equal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, muel said:

So, many years ago I moved into my current house.  Of course I knew the county and city that my new house was located (it's right there on the deed and mortgage papers) and I proceeded with the task of changing my address with all the businesses that would need to know such things.  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the post office in my city doesn't deliver my mail but a neighboring city does and oh, by the way, you have to put that other city as your address.  I don't like paying city taxes where I don't live and as you might guess the other city has a higher tax rate.  

 

The idea that we don't pay enough taxes is ridiculous.  With the taxes upon taxes that are paid already it is amazing.   It is how it is wasted that sucks.  We watch it happen at every level.  Meanwhile, there are firefighters who qualify for food stamps.  

Are you saying the City, where you don't reside is trying to charge you an ad valorium property tax (tax based on property value)?  If so that should be a pretty easy fix.

 

The deed isn't controling by the way, cities can annex after a property is sold and you are responsible for the tax.

 

The address where you tax bill is sent typically doesn't have anything to do with who charges you property taxes.  8t the location of the property and what taxing entities are entitled to charge a property tax.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
11 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Interesting, because by definition income taxes are apportioned if you consider the way funds are distributed to the states.  Does Texas get the same Medicaid money that New Mexico does per capita?  Even worse, West Virginia gets one third more money per capita than California.  So in that case there is no apportion, but rather the reverse.  But you say there is no constitutional basis for any of this?  I get it, but if so why has it been going on for years?

In other words, if apportionment is unequal now, why does it take constitutional action to make it equal?

If it is a direct tax it is unconstitutional unless amended (as in the case of Federal income tax).  

 

The 16th Amendment doesn't allow for appointment.

 

Apportionment simply means that if the cost of running the federal Govt is one trillion, you cannot collect taxes based on which state a person lives in and/or how many live in that state.

 

We really don't  have "distribution" of federal taxes.  For example the military.  The military budget isnt broken down by state, or numbers of military personnel in a state, so federal income tax revenue isn't really distributed in that sense.  There are a few exceptions like Farm Bill/USDA that may break down funding and grants by state or total acreage in a state.

 

As mentioned earlier, it is pork barrel legislation, and when you try to cut a military base you have to form a commission so someone doesn't have to fear being voted out if they support the cut.

 

On entitlement spending, like medicade, I'm not up on the precise funding formulas for that, I thought it was joint state and federal.  I don't know if eligibility is set federally nationwide, or state by state. But I don't think it can be analyzed on a per capita basis.  It would be like comparing Collin County with the RGV.  I bet the medicade spending is five times greater per capita in the RGV than in Collin County.  The conclusion is simply that more people who are eligible for medicare (poor) live in the RGV.than in Collin County.  

 

I think you would need to know the absolute numbers of people living below poverty line (I believe medicare eligilibity is based on a percentage of poverty level) in WV as compared to Texas. It is also complicated by other factors like people who are eligible for Medicaid simply dont go for treatment in some areas vs. others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, oldtimer said:

Interesting, because by definition income taxes are apportioned if you consider the way funds are distributed to the states.  Does Texas get the same Medicaid money that New Mexico does per capita?  Even worse, West Virginia gets one third more money per capita than California.  So in that case there is no apportion, but rather the reverse.  But you say there is no constitutional basis for any of this?  I get it, but if so why has it been going on for years?

In other words, if apportionment is unequal now, why does it take constitutional action to make it equal?

 

Or how about local activities (that involve fedral funding) on the part of the EPA, or the CDC, or paying farmers to not grow certain crops, or paying Oregon to not cut trees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...