Corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and fees should be eliminated from all government.

[originalpckelly]

1. Corporate Taxes: The issue here is not that the government should lose tax revenue, but it's that the government is placing tax burden in a haphazard way. The shareholders of a corporation maybe be billionaires or they could be mom and pop. When you tax a corporation, it is not with any regard to the people who may take money from it in the form of a dividend or an increase the price of their stock due a perceived increase in the company's value.

That is my problem with it.

Another is that a corporation that's larger has enough resources at its disposal that it can weasel its way out of paying taxes, something that benefits poorer shareholders, but also the richer ones. Again, the benefit is haphazard and can go to those who do not need it (the richer shareholders.)

When money comes out of the company in income for its workers and dividends, it should be taxed then, in a progressive manner. And any other gains are not linked to actual real income, and should be taxed again under a unified tax code.

2. Sales taxes have to be one of the dumbest ideas humanity ever came up with. Everyone has to pay a sales tax on taxable items, it is not means tested in most cases. So, in other words, someone who is rich pays the same tax as someone who is poor. What bullshit is that?

And we have the morons with the flat tax who want to just tax freaking sales, but the poorer ones don't see how badly they would get fucked under such a system.

3. Property taxes are not fair, and that's it. You can see how you'd like to dick over someone with a lot of land, but the problem is that these taxes often result in tax auctions, because even when a middle class home is paid for, you must still pay property taxes on it. You do not truly own it. In any other area of life, if I told you I was going to levy a tax just for owning it, you'd freak the fuck out. If I went further and said I could simply take it and sell it away to pay off the bill, for no higher price than the bill, you'd hang my ass.

But this is precisely what goes on with property taxes ALL THE TIME.

Elderly individuals in our society who worked their asses off in most case for a house are forced to sell it earlier. This is a method by which wealth is stolen away from people, not just the wealthy (the one's with the resources to pay for the tax bills), but mainly the poor/middle class. It makes a poor family even poorer.

One should eliminate taxes on property, and replace the tax with one on income equal to the amount of money needed to sustain the function formerly dependent upon the property taxes.

4. Fees are taxes. You can call it what you want, but you are taxing someone. In a lot of cases, not all, but a lot, there is no method in place to progressively increase a fee depending upon the income of the person. This again is wrong.

5. The last area is fines. Fines are not really taxes or "fees" in the traditional sense of the word, but they are unfair as currently structured. Why should someone pay the same amount of money for the exact same crime, if it will punish them less severely based upon their wealth and income? A $100 fine really hurts someone living paycheck to paycheck, but not at all for someone who is a millionaire.

They should be adjusted based upon the income and wealth of the individual in question, so that it will have the same negative consequences for all participants.

[Nikia]

1. Corporate taxes encourage businesses to reinvest in their business

Hiring more people at their own companies and stimulating other businesses. We could also use tax breaks to encourage socially responsible behavior.
Regardless of whether or not any of these taxes is good or bad, there would have to be other taxes increases to make up for this lost revenue. Existing taxes are often easier to maintain than new taxes legislatively.

[originalpckelly]

2. What does a company do with cash on hand?

It sends it out eventually to it's employees, investors, or buys something.
Employees can see a rise in their income taxes, at higher levels, which would do nothing to them, they wouldn't even notice a difference.
Or investors would get more money in dividends, and you could tax that too, again in a progressive way.
Or they buy something, which if its from a private individual, can be taxed like old fashioned income. If it's from a company, then the same rules above apply to it as well, if it is a corporation.

A company will not just sit on cash for an indefinite period of time, it will eventually be sent out. And because of that, it is a fairer system than indiscriminately taxing the poor/middle class employees or investors in a company.

In reality, corporate taxes really screw people over eventually, and you can get the same money back in a more efficient way by combining the revenue source for the government into another tax. There would be less duplication in society of those involved in enforcing the tax codes or people at companies planning out a tax regime for the company.

[dems_rightnow]

3. Remove corporate taxes?

It sure would help all the mid-lower class, who are struggling by dividend to dividend......

[krispos42]

4. Base corporate taxes on both profitiablity and annual revenues

Small companies could make huge profits (as a percentage of revenues) without much penalty, but that percentage goes down as the company gets larger. This would strongly discourage conglomerates, as they would not be profitable. Companies would have to spin-off divisions if they didn't want to get smacked with higher taxes as they grew to monopoly size. Or, as they grew larger, they would have to become less profitable... pay higher wages to the workers, lower prices, pay more in dividends, invest more in equipment, or offer more benefits. It would also tend to keep companies small, focused, and agile in the marketplace.


Let the value W equal annualized minimum wage (currently, $7.25/hr x 40 hours/week x 50 weeks/yr = $14,500), and let companies deduct from their taxes only up to 7 x W (currently, $101,500) of each employee's earnings... including salary/wage, bonuses, stock options, and whatever else the employee gets. If you want to give your CEO $10 million in salary, $20 million in bonuses, and $20 million in company stock, that's fine, but only the first $101,500 gets deducted from the company's income during tax times. The other $49,898,500 is taxable income.

For that matter, make Congressional salaries tied to the annualized minimum wage. One congresscritter makes 10 x W. You want a raise, Senator? Raise the minimum wage or get a second job.


Whenever an employee gets stock as part of a compensation package, they can only sell 10% of their shares per year. No more pump-and-dump by the executives. If they set up a lousy house-of-cards company, they won't be able to take the stock and run before the collapse.

[drm604]

5. What about corporations that don't pay dividends?

:shrug:

[EC]

6. If they can spend to skew elections with unlimited ads

they should have to pay taxes too. Corps are considered citizen's with free speech ($$$$) so they should be required to pay taxes as a citizen too.

[Frank Ness]

7. What tax method is a fair tax method?

We all have our opinions.

Is it possible that good ideas are often discarded because of their source ?

I was once against the fair tax plan... but actually took the time to sit down learn more about it. (Well, was 'forced' to sit down.) I realized I did not fully understand it.

Surprisingly, I walked away with a much different viewpoint.

If you truly are concerned about the middle class and the lower income segments of this society (and that would include 'me')... this has to be an option. Before you condemn it, research it yourself. 90% of the negative rhetoric I had heard was in fact false.

If you can imagine this, a tax that you pay on the 'extra' items you voluntarily purchase with your discretionary income. That is what it amounts to.

Perhaps someone can tell me why this particular plan is not a good one. If the democratic party could/would embrace the Fair Tax... perhaps modify some areas, they would be the true champions of the people.

[originalpckelly]

8. No, the fair tax is not good because at the moment of purchase...

the tax is not progressive and thus is unfair. Plus, people in lower income brackets spend more of their income on actually taxable goods. Even with the rebates, it's a terrible idea.

And the reason is that is so is that it was probably designed that way.

[fasttense]

9. The most glaring fact you are leaving out of your don't tax the corporations argument is:

Who are the majority stock holders and corporate executives?

You state: "Another is that a corporation that's larger has enough resources at its disposal that it can weasel its way out of paying taxes, something that benefits poorer shareholders, but also the richer ones."

Poor people do NOT own stock. They would have sold their stock in order to live hence the reason they are called poor.

It's not the poor and it is very few middle class people who own stocks, financial securities or business equity. There are very few mom and pop operations that own stock in corporations.

It is a myth that all Americans share equally in the success of stocks and Wall Street. It is mostly the uber rich who benefit from corporation and it always has been. The uber rich would like you to think all Americans share in the wealth when the financial sector has a successful year. If they can convince the poor and middle class that they are participating in the very same game, then the poor and middle class will more likely vote the way the rich, like the Koch brother, want them to.

But even at the birth of our nation, stocks in corporations such as the East India Tea Company were mostly owned by the upper crust, not the poor or even the middle class. And that's why we had a revolutionary war when the English royalty decided to give a TAX CUT to the East India Tea Corporation.

Here is a link to who actually owns America:

"In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate."

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Yes we must tax corporation in excess otherwise they will own us.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I disagree

1)Corporate taxes should be increased. Taxes need to be a part of doing business and if a business can't afford that cost then they need to go under and make room for a business that is run efficiently enough to contribute to the community. I would support an alternative minimum tax for corporations based on their total revenue. Taxing only profit is a loophole that needs to be eliminated and I think we can do it in one fell swoop.

2)Consumption taxes (sales tax) are a good idea. Those who spend more are taxed more and those who spend less are taxed less. I will agree that our system could be reformed so that necessities are taxed less (or not at all) while luxuries are taxed more than they are now. We can quibble over the numbers but consumption taxes are a good thing.

3) Property taxes are necessary. Communities have expenses that are ongoing. The lights on the streets that you live on and the fire hydrant that is near your home to protect it need to be maintained and there needs to be a source of revenue for that. Your suggestion of an increased income tax doesn't make sense to me. This just encourages the wealthy to find even more loopholes and deductions than they do now. I don't see how your suggestion would do anything other than make things worse.

4) Fees tend to be for services rendered. It seems to be a fair way to deal with the costs of governing. I will need to renew my driver's license soon. I will pay a fee to do so. This way people who do not drive do not need to contribute toward that cost. It seems fair to me.

5)O.K.! I can agree with you on this one. Fines should be based on income so long as the individuals actual income can be determined accurately. Most business owners claim things like their vehicle and their clothes as business expenses. Even meals are often written off. Under this system much more than the salary they pay themselves needs to be considered as income.

[mmonk]

11. Their dogma is powerful.

A reminder income taxes (and that includes corporations) is based on how much you make. So the less they make, the less they pay. Now that taxes are lowered at the top end, that is when state and local taxes and fees goes up trying to make up from revenue shortfalls due to taxes being lowered at the top. That is the situation we are in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. No, yes, yes, no.

corporate income taxes also collect income from people who profit from our infrastructure but otherwise pay nothing.
"Fees" include things like garbage collection and water. You can't encourage conservation of these resources without charging for their use.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. self delete

[FormerDittoHead]

14. Sigh. An overview

1) Corporations are taxed for a number of reasons. First, they are not simple pass-through conduits of business for the owners. They are independent entities who enjoy protections from the gov't that individuals do not have. They do not die like people do, and so are excempt from inheritance taxes. They may, for example, accumulate untaxed wealth and capital appreciation indefinitely, protecting its appreciation (sheltering it from taxes) forever. Another benefit of corporate tax on profits is supposed to help smaller, less profitable corporations compete with the larger corporations who enjoy the economies of scale for nothing more than their size.

Perhaps the biggest problem I see with corporations is that they've been allowed to become these mega-corporations, and that has been the road to hell. Simply, corporations should never been ALLOWED to simply buy out it competitors and then dominate the market. This is especially true when they leverage their position in one industry to take advantage in another. The best example is Disney buying ABC. Our ancestors thought that production companies should be kept independent to distribution companies, etc and I think they got it right. Allowing single companies to own all channels of a chain of commerce increases profits, but at the loss of competition.

Back to taxes. The problem with collecting taxes from corporations could be solved, but the political will is not there. I find it reprehensible, for example, that this "mailbox in Antigua" loophole remains open. Close it! The other thing could be to dis-allow non-productive activities used to only lower taxes, such as the practice of leasing public facilities in other countries, then renting them back for the same amount of money, only to realize a shifting of income (or type of income) from one country to another.

Taxes on simple revenues is nothing more than a sales tax, so I'd be against those.

Lastly, on corporations, let's dispense with the "double taxation" bullshit. When you spend a dollar buying something, you've paid taxes on making it, then taxes on spending it, and the company you're buying it from will pay taxes as income. Money is taxed on every level in the economy, and to pretend that somehow corporations are an unjust example is simply to echo an induced myopia created for/by the political writers paid for by the wealthy (aka CATO, Heritage, etc). The wealthy own the vast majority of corporation wealth and certainly control virtually 100% of it. Don't let their bullshit cloud your mind.

2) I agree about sales taxes. They are used only because they are easy to collect. I know Delaware, for example, gets by without them, so it *is* possible to run a state without the most regressive of all taxes. The fairtax scheme is a ridiculous conspiracy on many levels, but its the least desirable because our not only does our economy depend upon people spending money, but many people have no choice but to spend everything they make.

3) I personally can't think of a tax more fair than property taxes. Property represents wealth. While the valuation of property, used in order to determine liability, is often questionable, the principle that bigger, more valuable properties should pay more taxes for the services of fire, police, etc is an idea which predates the Declaration of Independence and there is not a state which has seen fit to eliminate them. While they've eliminated sales and income taxes, every state sees the wisdom of property taxes.

I personally think the "ultimate" tax would be a wealth tax. A big part of what our country DOES with its taxes is protect wealth in possession and value. France has a wealth tax, so it's POSSIBLE to have one, however, I see it being problematic. In the end, however, rich people have bigger houses, certainly own more property than the lower classes, and so I see property taxes as being a fair tax.

4) Fees. While it's fair that some fees should be paid for by those who use a given service (drivers licenses were used elsewhere) many fees are virtually universal, like the flat line fees on the phone. I think that phone taxes, for example, should be based not upon the phone unit, but upon usage. If you use the phone a lot, you should pay more for such fees. If you hardly use the phone, I don't understand why you should pay the same fees as someone who enjoys that service much more than you.

5) Fines. Yes, fines should be modified to be proportional to a person's income/wealth. Only then will fines be a true discouragement.

[Frank Ness]

15. Come on now... some one please explain....

I have yet to see a reason why the fair tax or a consumption tax will not be an improvement over the current confusing skewed tax system we have. Yes, its the same for everyone Mr pcKElly, but last I checked, rich people spend a hell of a lot more money than poor people.

Lets look at an individual who makes 16.00 per hr.
They bring home, after all of the taxes/deductions roughly 75% of that.... or 12.00 per hr.
$12.00 X 40 = $480.00 per week X 4 = 1920.00 per month.

Certainly not much to create wealth with. Take out health insurance, housing, utilities, food, transportation, and you are breaking even if lucky. A two income household is mandatory these days. Your only real tax break is a child tax credit. Yay, lets have more kids... is it still 3000 for each one ? All that is is hush money come tax time. You still run a deficit and never get a chance to create any wealth. Does the word Drone mean anything?

With a consumption tax ie the Fair Tax the same individual would bring home
$16.00hr X 40hrs X 4wks = $2560.00
The rebate for the tax spent on the basic living expenses would amount to, lets say $350 per month.

This would result in a monthly income of $2910.00. Almost $1000 per month more. $12,000 per yr!

If the theory on price of goods is correct... since all corporate tax are removed too, and the actual price of goods goes down...the consumption tax would result in a slight increase over what we are paying now... and a huge increase in what a low to middle class wage earner pockets each.

I dont know you guys... that doesn't seem like a bad way to go. No IRS... no audits ... no smoke and mirror games with a gigantic tax code designed to benefit the rich and placate the poor. No shennanigans from tax cheats. God, everybody is a liar come tax day.



Please, one of you really smart people who just claim the Fair Tax is trickery or a scam or whatever... can you tell me why it is so ? Why it is not an improvement over the current tricky scammy tax system we have now ?


I am confused on this. No... I am confused as why this has not been a focus of a party who pretend to represent the working class.... ????


Really, all I hear from my former democratic party is this the Fair Tax hurts the lower income families.... and all the democratic party wants to do is raise the tax on the wealthy and corporations...

Great... but the little guy is still getting squashed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. You fail to say what rate you'd set your 'fair tax' at

or what it would be levied on. All you've said is that you'd give someone on $16/hr an extra $350 per month, and they wouldn't pay any of this 'fair tax' at all.

[Frank Ness]

17. OK... my bad

Like I said, I am not an expert nor a fanatic... I encourage you to seek out more information on this tax plan if interested or have questions. Google them.

The rate proposed by the fair tax plan is 23%
The $350 rebate estimate is based on 20000 per yr for basic necessities. The tax on the first 20K everyone spends is returned, thus the 'fairness' to lower income levels.

$20000 X .23 = $4600 per yr.
$4600 / 12mos = $383

Every household receives $383 tax rebate per month.... I do not know the details of how its split up for multiple wage earners under one roof. I would imagine you have to distinguish/disclose some expense financials to determine your true rebate amount.

It still seems like a fair system to the lower and middle class, and does not favor the rich/elite who are able to hide their tax obligation via creative accountants and devised loopholes. Meanwhile the middle class is tricked each yr into prepaying taxes weekly, then getting a small portion back in one lump sum... woopeeee

And, it should be noted, under this fair tax, you are taxed upon what you elect to spend, not on what you earn or save, not on interest, dividends, capital gains, etc. One bonus theorized (?) is a boom to the economy as companies would find this country a very friendly arena for investment.

Look, I am on the fence here. I always think 'if its too good to be true then.....' yet I do not hear a logical refute of this plan. Just that it's crazy, or some reference to Tea P-ers and Libertarians. There is little doubt in my mind, our current system is a mess, and has been continually expanded to allow legal corruption.

Anyone.... Anyone... Bueller ?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. The simple question is: if some people pay less, who is going to pay more?

If that can be identified, then we can evaluate if we think it's fairer than the current system.

What my Googling produces is:



which suggests just about everyone will pay less. Which means that government spending has to go down too. So, what spending cuts are you proposing? I also find that rent would be subject to the tax, but that mortgage interest up to the federal borrowing rate would not. This would seem to be a big gift to richer people who spend a significant amount of their income on a mortgage. Is that what you're proposing?

If you're going to say "Anyone.... Anyone... Bueller ?" then you have to know the answers to these questions. Telling people to 'Google it' is a cop-out.

[Frank Ness]

20. Thanks for googling...

No I dont have all the answers... thought a discussion would help. The world of Google is a large place... good find though. You're right, I need to learn more.

There are a few sites that challenge the fair tax

http://fairtaxfraud.com/aboutus.asp is one.

Now I'm really confused. I think I'll just underground for a few yrs. Dont think taxes it will matter much soon. The War Machine is going to be the death of us all.

[BobbyBoring]

19. Most Mega Corps are incorporated in Delaware

and are sub chapter S corporations. Delaware has the most favorable laws regarding taxation. If you ever go to areas where there are lots of big yachts, you'll notice they are all from Wilmington or Dover DE.

The Sub S corporations themselves are not taxed as far as federal income tax goes, only the share holders are.

[slackmaster]

21. California is in deep trouble partly because the state is so dependent on income taxes

Income taxes are volatile. They go down drastically when the economy is bad. About 1/4 of the state's revenue is from personal income tax on people who earn over $300,000 per year. When investments go south, so does those peoples' income and in turn the taxes they pay.

http://web.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/12/relying-on-wealthy-taxpayers-carries-risk/

Sales taxes are regressive, but they are much more stable because people always have to buy stuff.