--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings no_reply@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected] , "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You are confusing the issue by bringing in the concept of > "profits" > > > for different class groups. NET PROFIT (revenue less expenses) for a > > > individual taxpayer -- which under this discussion would be an > > > individual doing business as a single proprietor or his share of a > > > partnership -- is considered taxable income (that is, once > deductions > > > and exemptions are deducted from that net profit).>> > > > > > > That's called profit. No-one is technically taxed on anything but > profit > > > (unless they are not educated, or rich enough to have lawyers. > Warren > > > Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. If you can deduct > it > > > against your income then that is a deduction. If after all > deductions > > > you apply, your income exceeds your expenditure, then the difference > is > > > called profit. But I guess you didn't know that and you are being > ripped > > > off for that enslaved mind of yours, and the rich and the > corporations > > > end up with YOUR money in their profit.. > > > > > > Now answer the questions: > > > > > > > > > > I already did in the last post, if you bothered looking below where > you actually asked the questions. > > > > Pay attention. > > > Ok, thanks: You said: > > <<1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their > total revenues.= 17% > > <<2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. = 17% > > <<3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - > notice I said PROFITS, not income.) = 17% > > A couple of more questions: > > 4. If you got decide property taxes, what percentage of the value of the > property per annum do you think it should be. For example, my house is > worth about $215,000, and I pay about $3,000 a year (its actually > slightly less, but technically that's what it should be), so that is > about 1.4% of the property value, paid annually (about 14% over 10 > years), and we have good schools close by, which is the biggest > indicator of property values. ie. the better the schools, the better the > property values rise statistically around the country.
I really don't know enough about property taxes to give a competent answer (ironic because I once had an article I wrote about property taxes published in a tax journal!). I always find it weird, though, when I hear that people pay $5-6,000 a year in property taxes in places like Long Island or New Jersey when I pay about $1,200 a year. So to my mind, anything over $1,500 seems like a lot. > > 5. Would you have a sales tax and what would it be? Are you talking about a national (federal) sales tax? That's what that "Fair Tax" is all about (ie, a value-added tax on goods and services). But if I understand it correctly, the Fair Tax would replace the income tax, the payroll tax, and I think corporate tax. > > 6. Should there be an estate taxt and what should it be? Normally, I'd say "no" there shouldn't be but the government is so much in debt that one for everyone -- no deductions on the value of an estate on death! -- should pay a flat 10%. I remind you, though, that in the United States there is no capital gains at death; all costs bases are "stepped up" to market value at death. > > 7. Should there be laws against pollution? And should there be fines for > polluting. Yes. > > 8. Should there be international penalties (fines, or trading blocks) > against countries that use cheap labor wth people who have no rights and > are more like endentured slaves than workers to produce their food and > manufacture their goods, which they then sell at a profit? If they are like slaves then this is a reason not only to not do business with a country but to seriously considering forming an international coalition and invade that country. By the way, your explanation of such a country bears an eery resemblance to Cuba, whose totalitarian Marxist regime regularly contracts with foreign companies for, say, $10.00 an hour for the labor provided and then only pay the Cuban workers, say, 50 cents an hour, with the communist government keeping the difference for themselves. > > The reason I ask these last questions is because it all ties into the > cost of business and therefore is relevant to the tax question. In other > words, if, for example, a country sells goods that poison, pollute, or > damage others, should there be fines or penalties (since taxing ahead of > time is not possible, but the pollution needs to be cleaned up. And > since all companies pollute to some extent, should there be a (very) > small pollution tax on a business that helps communities deal better > with the local pollution, and nations bring better ways to deal with > pollution (eg. poisoning of the seas, water table, soils, and air. > > 9. Should there be a war tax to support the war and the troops? - if so > how mcuh, and what percentage of income could it be or how would you > apply it for poor, middle class, and rich? I haven't given it much thought but, no, I'm not for a surtax on special projects of the government...and I am for a flat tax which would mean the same tax rate for all earners. > > 10. Should there be any tax to help keep roads and bridges in good > condition? > We have that already. There is a federal surcharge on each gallon of gas that you buy at the pump. And there are usually state and local taxes as well. See: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp In Canada where I am originally from it's worse: an average of 32 cents per dollar goes to taxes: http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx > 11. Should government owned airports tax airlines for using their > infrastructure including air traffic control I believe they already do and, yes, that sounds like a fair tax. > > 12. Should there be any extra tax to help develop technology and such > institutions as NASA and the National Parks? No, let it come from the general fund. Although I think there should be tax incentives to promote private space travel and exploration. There is a huge push across the globe to develope lunar helium 3 (it will virtually end all our pollution and energy problems if its promise holds true) and I think that the private sector would do a better job than the government and NASA on this. > > 13. Any other taxes you think are essential for a local government > and/or federal government to be able to function? and what percent of > item should it be. ...not off hand... > > I am just trying to get a clear picture of the system. I agree with you > about the 17% on the first 3, although I think that is too high. I think > it should be 10% and a basic food, rent, and clothing allowance for the > poor, and some school clothing and equipment allowance etc. since school > is compulsory/necessary especially for the poor because they cannot > afford the time to home school for example. > > So for me so far, it is: > > <<1. For the lower middle class? -- their profits that is, not their > total revenues.= 10% > > <<2. For the middle class? -- their profits that is. = 10% > > <<3. For the wealthy ( eg. earning over $250,000 a year in profits - > notice I said PROFITS, not income.) = 10% > > But I also believe the tax havens should be closed. Just because they > can afford lawyers, corporations and rich cannot be given loopholes in > paying that flat 10%, when everyone else has to pay. Loopholes should be > closed and a 10% flat rate on profit enacted. > > OffWorld > Hey, you are being MORE libertarian than me with your 10% figure! I like it!
