Fair Tax

[americanfirst]

Mo I have a question for you? If the average wealth of the top 400 wealthest Americans according to Forbes increase an average of $112,500,000 dollars last year I don't really think that taxes must be to much of a burden on them.

And as for them being the most productive Americans lets take a look. 39% of them including numbers 4,5,6,7,8,12,13,14,17,19 inherited themselves onto the list which is 10 of the top 20.

Now for some quotes from some of the self made rich about being self made billionaires.

Jim Sherblom, a venture capitalist and former chief financial officer of the biotech firm, Genzyme, says, "The opportunities to create wealth are all taking advantage of public goods — like roads, transportation, markets — and public investments. None of us can claim it was all personal initiative. A piece of it was built upon this infrastructure that we all have this inherent moral obligation to keep intact."

Warren Buffett, No. 2 on the Forbes 400, attended a publicly supported state school, the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, and is quite clear that his investment wealth depends on America's social and economic infrastructure. "I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned," said Buffett. "I happen to work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well -- disproportionately well."

Larry Page, No. 43 on the Forbes 400, co-founded Google, which went public this year. Page graduated from a state school, the University of Michigan, and then attended Stanford University for graduate work, where Google was born. Government grants underpin the lucrative research in Silicon Valley and at Stanford University. The Internet platform, without which Google would not exist, is built on a foundation of taxpayer-funded research and development.

H. Ross Perot, Jr, No. 40 on the Forbes 400, grew his company Electronic Data Systems (later sold to General Motors) by focusing on computer systems and services for Medicare, a government program. The company's growth -- and windfall profits -- really took off when it began reselling the Medicare claims processing system it had developed for Texas Blue Cross under a research and development contract paid for by federal funds.

"My wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment, both in others and in me. I received a good public school education and used free libraries and museums paid for by others. I went to college under the GI Bill. I went to graduate school to study computers and language on a complete government scholarship... While teaching at Syracuse University for 25 years, my research was supported by numerous government grants... My university research provided the basis for Syracuse Language Systems..."

— Martin Rothenberg, founder of Syracuse Language Systems and Glottal Enterprises



"Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant. Luck has a lot to do with it."

— Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, Inc.



"The opportunities to create wealth are all taking advantage of public goods--like roads, transportation, markets--and public investments... We are all standing on the shoulders of all that came before us, and creating a society for our children and those that come after us. We have obligations as part of that."

— Jim Sherblom, venture capitalist and former chief financial officer of Genzyme



"I feel like there's no way I've done this by myself... Every single person we worked with has contributed to making Hanna what it is today... People in Sweden don't like paying taxes either, but nobody would ever suggest that you would close schools because you didn't have enough money to keep them open."

— Gun Denhart, co-founder of Hanna Andersson clothing company



"I know a lot of people who believe their success is only due to their hard work, their ingenuity... They say, 'I made it, it's mine and I'm going to hold onto it.'... My response it that a lot of factors go into building a successful business. For instance, did they go to a public high school or a tax-supported college? A lot of folks forget the help they got... The support of our legal and financial system...is unique in the world in assisting business enterprise. We take it for granted."

— David Lewis, founder of AirGas


Gee Whiz I don't hear them whining about their taxes. It seems that they appriciate all the help they've had in their lives.

[MO]

I think I'll pass on giving more money to the government and continue to give about 18% of my income to private charities. If you don't think you're paying enough in taxes, and they could do a better job of disposing of it, give more! I'm sure they'll take it. Or do you just want to try to make yourself believe that you care more by demanding other people's money...

[americanfirst]

Mo I commend you on giving to the charities. We give that and more to my wife's family to help support them in the Philippines. My wife's sister is a widow and fortunately has a job with an American company. If it were'nt for them giving her a job I not sure that we could support her. She makes 85 peso's a day for sewing eight womans suites a day no matter how long it takes. Let me see today the exchange rate is: copied from the Philippine National Bank, New York branch " FYI, our counter-buying rate for Thursday, September 30, 2004 is PHPesos55.20 per US$1.00. " that means she would have to make a 110 peso's to make two dollars. What does she do. She sews those $250 womans suites you see in places like Hetch's, Lord & Taylor, and Macy's.

We also help her brother and wife and two children and another sister and her husband and child. We don't even get to take a tax deduction but it makes me feel good at night to know that someone's life is a little better because of our help.

Your giving to charity is one of the biggest arguments about the supposed fair tax. There will be no deductions for charitble giving and charities and colleges know that they are going to suffer from reduced giving. That coupled with the fact that most people will be paying more in taxes instead of less under this scheme will leave them less to give even if their heart is in the right place like yours and mine.

Ya'll continue to miss the point I trying to make. If you would just go back and read my posts. This is about the majority of Americans paying much more in taxes not less. I don't want to give the government more of my money. But I don't care what the Walton's with their inherited weath who do nothing but collect a check pay. Their not involved with the running of the company. Their not investing new capitol to expand the business. They just collect 38% of the profits. Am I mad about that? No! But I really don't give a damn about how much they pay in taxes. They have certainly benifited from our tax money that built the ports that allow them to import their goods from China. They certainly have benifited from our tax money that pays for the roads their trucks drive on. They certainly have benifited from the tax breaks and improvements that many localities have made to get them to build their wharehouses in their localities.

They would do just fine if they paid twice what they do now. I don't care. Isn't it the essence of conservative values to look out for your self first. That's what I'm doing. I have researched this issue and every logical piece I can find says I will pay more. If the rich whom pay much or most or what ever of the tax pay substantially less and we are already running a hell of a deficit I and you and the rest of the bottom 95% will have to pay more. That's a fact that's not very hard to understand.

[MO]

I just don't understand why you keep trying to get an argument out of me. I looked it over and I don't like it. Maybe for some of the same reasons and maybe some others but I don't like it.

First off, I'm a social conservative not a social libertarian. I don't want a tax code that only considers the wage earner and not the family he might be supporting. A tax code with built in selfish values that favors the dink (dual income no kids) family and doesn't even consider the kids in the house or the handicapped family member is not for me.

Second- The way it is trying to be implemented- with growing an already huge and unnecessary department of the government to cut checks for every household in the country, every month, for household necessities! Come on! Can you say nanny state?

Third- And certainly last but not least! Our first income tax was levied during the civil war. Withholding taxes didn't come around until FDR. What withholding taxes did was hide how much we are paying to the government, to a certain extent. This might sound great to lazy, complacent tax payers who don't want that evening at the table figuring their taxes or spring for a service. But the fact is it's much easier under the current system to at least KNOW what we are paying! The powers that be know that they don't have to fear a Boston tea party act two if Americans are too stupid and complacent to know how much they pay. Would I know? I don't know that I could be vigilant enough to keep track of everything I buy. Let the government keep track of how much each person pays? Now we're really getting into dangerous territory!

[americanfirst]

If your a social concervative I agee you would really be against this. In fact it favors the two income not married who shack up. They each would get back 30% of $9000 plus a year if they got married they would only get back 30% of 12,000 plus. They would get back $175 more a month to stay shacked up. One thing it might do though is convince gays not to get married. But's that is about the only thing I could find good in this whole bill.

[MO]

Since there is no recognition of children living in the home, the liberals would use it to promote their socialist, "it's for the children" projects that only lift some ships and dictate how people should live. Consider the example of subsidized day care which the family that makes the financial sacrifice to have a stay at home parent has to subsidize. Under the current system we can shut them up a little with an increase in the child deduction, which helps all families with kids.

That plan is a liberal, big spending politician's dream come true. It would create a populous of idiots who don't know how much they actually pay in taxes.

[starm]

OK I posted most of this in another thread but it seems so relevant here.

Social services have been shown to increase the flow of money because people in good health are more productive. There are all kinds of psychological and physical advantages to having these programs. Why do you think that even the most money driven corporations usually force their employees at taking a huge part of their salary in benefices? It is because they know those healthy employees are productive employees. If the government provided a greater part of these things to its citizens it would increase productivity and quality of life in general. You have to increase taxes so that it is viable but the tax increase to corporations isn’t as high as it looks. It won’t drive companies away because they also save a lot. They don’t need to provide as much benefices to their employees since the government provides it instead. The companies benefit from workers that have profited from social services all their life and are therefore more qualified, more psychologically balanced and are able to compete better in the global economy. Therefore, the number of jobs increases, specially the good ones that need higher education and that have good pay.

Some government services like roads, a legal system, police, etc… are an obvious boost to the economy. Some services have a less obvious boost but that doesn’t mean we should not have those services. Experts in different fields will tell you that offering services save money. For example, a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists are convinced that if they could give free therapy to families and children with problems early in their life they could prevent a lot of them from becoming criminals and thus reduce the cost of crime police, and reduce criminal influence (criminals turn their peers into criminals) in the long term.

True, there are cheaters in the system. And there are probably lots of them. But I believe you should not go out of your way to punish them, that’s just punishing yourself. You should try to do everything you can that dissuade the cheating by tailoring the system so that it is not advantageous to cheat, but only if it doesn’t impair your lifestyle to do so. Cutting social services impairs your lifestyle and raises the cost of living. I know humans have an instinct against freeloaders, there’s a bell that rings in our head at the thought of the possibility of being exploited. Basic instincts can help us lots of times, but we have the advantage over animals that we are intellectual beings. Don’t let that basic instinct get to you when your intellect can tell you that you are better off if you just ignore the freeloaders sometimes. Be proud of your legacy to society and to America. Don’t be scared it will just benefit the freeloaders. Be glad that you made a better place to live for the other hard workers which are doing the same for you. Yes if you look at it directly I can see how it can seem to benefit mostly others, but it is as much for your benefit, the benefit of the economy and of corporations. You have to look at the big picture. It will be very beneficial for you that everyone around you is competent and sane. There are high costs associated with the opposite situation. You’re right taking your hard earned money and forcing you to give it to others for no reason is bad. But this is for your benefit. It also acts as a kind of insurance to you. If ever you or a member of your family gets really sick or you loose your house and everything you own in a disaster, you will have government help to fall on. One of the nice things with social services is that it is multiplicative. When people are taken car of, they can themselves help others who can help even more people.

I firmly believe capitalism (or profit maximization) is the only way for countries to work well. It is a form of economic survival of the fittest where the better, easier, cheaper alternative is the one that thrives. It is the most natural way to efficient life. But I still think you have to be intelligent about it and not view only the direct obvious causality link (my money goes to the poor), but the big picture where the sum of all direct and indirect advantages are accounted for.

One argument towards taxing the rich is that, you can rarely "hard work" your way into making a salary of $1000000 a year. If you do make that salary theres a good chance that you inherited money, you manipulated the market (possibly illegally), or you were just plain lucky. You may have worked hard. But the hard work usually doesn't account for that high a salary. A person making $1 000 000 per year probably doesn’t work five times harder or has five times more skills than a person making $200 000. I think people who have acquired their wealth through, manipulation, luck, or even more likely inheritance, should be the first ones to be taxed a lot because they haven’t worked for their money.

Also assuming we keep the incentive to be productive constant, there is a fixed amount of resources and wealth in a country. That means each time we let someone make a $1000 000/year salary that’s ten hard working, educated people that have to work at McDonald instead of making $100 000/year each in a good job that’s uses their education and makes the country more productive. Theres nothin worst for productivity than having educated people in crappy jobs. The cost of their education is never returned.

The democrats have been known to give more social services than the republicans yet the unemployment rate was at its lowest and growth at its highest during times governed by the democrats (see link below). With the increased services, the government spending was lower during the years governed by the democrats even when not counting military spending. That means that even while offering social services they managed to keep the freeloaders to a very low level. The numbers prove that. If social services would be making people lazy, the unemployment rate would have gone up. The democrat administration managed to give the US citizen the benefit of social services without making more freeloaders profit from the system. The republican’s simplistic strategy of reducing taxes and hoping for the best has always failed in comparison to the democrat’s economic policies. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29205-2004Jul30?language=printer)

[MO]

pfff! Same old long winded and boring fallacious arguments.

"Eventually, socialism runs out of other people's money."
Thatcher

There are some Lenin and Stalin quotes I could use to sum all that up, too.

[MO]

Don't reproduce the same drivel on different threads anymore please.

[americanfirst]

I agree Mo! But I want to keep this thread alive to show as many people as possible that both under the flat tax or the national sales tax that 95% of Americans would pay more not less. Plus in mine and many others opinion the National Sales Tax in particular would have vast negative effects on the economy. Even the proponents of the flat tax admit it would have negative effects on the value of your home. I'm planning on retireing to the South Pacific in three years and selling my home. I sure don't want to get less for it.

I have yet to find one person that is will to pay more so those in the top 2 to 5% would pay less. Still waiting. What I want to happen is for those that finally get it to start calling the congressmen and the White House and tell them that don't want these programs and if they co-sponsor or vote for them they better start looking for a new job.

[MO]

Also, no reason to give the gov new ways to tax. No way to guarantee they wouldn't bring back an income tax on top of the sales tax.

The idea of any kind of built in market control by the feds raises a red flag with me. It never turns out to be a good thing when gov starts messing with the free market.

[americanfirst]

Although I agree with you that's there's no way to guarantee they wouldn't bring back an income tax on top of the sales tax. I do think it will be very unlikely. The more likely outcome is that they would continue to raise the sales tax probably in the middle of the night with a voice vote. Those that want to get rid of the income tax, capitol gains tax, employer's share of social security tax and Medicare tax, the estate tax and all business taxes would fight to the death to keep any of them from coming back.

Now could any sane person really believe that you could replace all of that with a 23% tax on sales of new items and services only and refund the first 19% of the tax that everyone pays. When the social security and medicare alone are 15.3% of not sales but saleries starting at the first dollar. If they do I got a friend that has some beach front property that he wants to sell in Haiti. I realize that you get it Mo. But what needs to happen is for many people to get it and call their members of congress and make it very clear that they would not support them if they were to vote for, sponsor or co-sponsor enabling legislation.

[americanfirst]

Read the bio on Bruce Bartlett below then the to links to his articles about the National Sales Tax and see if anyone here can still support it.

Bruce Bartlett is one of the most influential columnists in Washington today. Distributed through Creators Syndicate , his twice-weekly column appears in the Washington Times, Investor's Business Daily, Indianapolis Star, New York Sun and on such well-read websites as NationalReview.com and Townhall.com . His articles also often appear in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and other major publications.

Bruce's analysis frequently breaks news about tax policy and other economic issues long before they come to the attention of beat reporters. That is why he is so frequently quoted in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. It is why he is a frequent guest on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, NBC Nightly News, Nightline, Crossfire, Moneyline, CNN, CNBC, the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and other news programs.

Bartlett 's work is often cited in congressional debate. Among Members of Congress who have cited Bartlett's work on the House and Senate floors are House Speakers Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, Senators Sam Brownback, Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, John Kyl, Spencer Abraham, Larry Craig, Connie Mack, Mack Mattingly, Paul Coverdell, Richard Lugar, Phil Gramm, Jeff Sessions, and Paul Simon.

Bruce has also testified before the House Ways & Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Budget Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, the Congressional Black Caucus, and was the only Republican witness at a combined hearing of the House and Senate Democratic Policy Committees.

In 1977, Bartlett was responsible for drafting the famous Kemp-Roth tax bill, which formed the basis of Ronald Reagan's tax program and the 1981 tax cut. Subsequently, he wrote the best-selling book, Reaganomics , named one of the best business books of 1981 by the Wall Street Journal and the Library Journal . It remains the best explanation of Reagan's economic philosophy ever published.

He began his career in 1976 as a staffer to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas . As a staffer to then-Congressman Jack Kemp (later Secretary of HUD and Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 1996), he was a key figure in the origin and development of supply-side economics.

In the early 1980s, Bartlett was Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the congressional counterpart to the President's Council of Economic Advisers . In 1987, President Reagan's chief domestic policy adviser, Gary Bauer, invited Bartlett to work on the White House staff in the Office of Policy Development. At the end of the Reagan Administration, Bartlett joined the Treasury Department, where he served as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy until the end of the administration of George H.W. Bush.

He writes for top academic journals, such as the National Tax Journal, Tax Notes, The World Economy, the Financial Analysts Journal, The Public Interest, the Journal of Developing Areas, and History of Political Economy , among others. His work is often cited in the most respected journals in the economics field.





www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200408180854.asp

www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200408090847.asp