They save the rest in a bank, making it less expensive for the bank to loan money.
The bank pays tax on the interest it earns. The rich person pays tax on the interest *they* earn. Money that just sits, for instance in a checking account that doesn't earn interest and isn't collateralized in some manner, isn't taxable. But it isn't doing anything, either. If it is collateral, for instance on a credit line, that credit line is taxable the instant it is issued, and for the full amount of the line. When new value is transferred, the tax applies. No loopholes.
Or they invest it in companies that purchase things and pay taxes on those things.
The investor pays taxes on stocks, bonds, etc. Same rate. And also on any income gained from those investments. No exceptions.
Money unspent is not gone from the economy, it's put to work in other ways.
Any money put to work on new goods or services or instruments, is taxed. Any money put to work on used goods is taxed if the purchase price exceeds the previous value on which taxes were paid. For instance, I sell you a new house for $100k. You pay $35k in taxes. You resell the house for $150k. The new buyer pays $17.5k in taxes (on the 50k price increase.) Or, you sell the house for $75k; the buyer does not pay taxes on the purchase (because this value has already been taxed -- no double dipping.)
please don't tell me you want someone below the poverty line to pay $2,500 in taxes.
No, not at all. I was just trying to show how percentages act across widely diverse income levels.
My flat tax concept is designed both to completely eliminate the highly regressive effects of the income tax on the poor, and to eliminate all tax loopholes, large and small, obsolete the vast bulk of the IRS, encourage investment and savings, and simplify tax collection enormously. It can be extended from the federal level to the state level easily, too, though it'd be a bear to do -- and as pointed out earlier, it'd take a constitutional convention to legitimately obtain the authority for any of this.
My method builds in a true zero tax liability structure up to a defined "poverty" level, which may be determined as locally as desired down to the individual, or as globally as the entire population. Individually is most accurate; globally is least expensive. Some level of compromise is called for.
Every new transaction (land, buildings, services, stocks, goods, diapers, TP, gardening, etc.) is taxed at the same rate; used items are taxed if they have gained in sales price and then, only for the amount gained. No double (or more) dipping.
Basically, each person is given a tax allowance at the beginning of each month. For instance, if the poverty level is determined to be $2000 in monthly spending, and the tax rate is 35%, then each person gets a check for $700.
This completely covers the tax liability for all spending up to that $2000 level. Over that, everyone has to come up with their own tax dollars. In this way, basic needs are wholly tax free for everyone -- no matter what your income -- and everything else, isn't. Totally level playing field at the bottom, totally proportional playing field elsewhere.
With the check arriving at the beginning of the month, and disbursed as tax fees by the end, there is no ongoing cost for the tax mechanism other than check distribution; electronic distribution would be preferable as it can be zero cost.
Of course, both the 35% tax rate and the $2000 poverty level are hand waving. Those would have to be carefully determined in order for the government to recoup the funds needed and for the poor to be served appropriately.
Here are three short cartoons that go over the basics:
You don't need to tax them at higher rates. Percentages already do that. Just tax them at a flat rate.
Do the math. You get taxed 10% on $25,000.00, they take two thousand, five hundred bucks from you. They tax some rich person at 10% on twenty million dollars, and they take two million dollars from them.
Flat tax, two people contributing, one is you at about two thousand, five hundred bucks the other is the rich guy at two million dollars. Total is two million, two thousand five hundred dollars. Of which YOU paid about 1/800th of the total. Say they build a highway from this taxation. Now you and the rich guy can drive on it. Does that feel like you're not "redistributing the wealth"?
Isn't that enough, without the rich guy paying an even higher percentage?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but me, I'm not rich, yet a flat tax rate seems pretty severe already, and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. The problem as I see it is that the rich aren't paying that rate. Look at what Google just paid in taxes. And it's perfectly legal, by which I mean to say it's perfectly broken.
It was just an example. It's still just $38 as I write this. Your complaint was decoders were as expensive as the XDS. I'm pointing out that EBay (or a good will shop, or a dumpster, or your brother's uncle's sister's aunt) can get you a (very good!) decoder for less from the zillions of used stereos that are out there. It's your job to find one that is in your country and in your price range. I can't do *everything* for you. Isn't it enough that I pointed out that your problem can be solved? Now get to work and solve the problem.:)
"Fyngyrz' business uses sweatshops. He also beats his wife. You shouldn't patronize it."
Say anything you want, doesn't intimidate me in the least. Speech is harmless. Libel and slander are completely imaginary injuries, crafted by those who fail to comprehend liberty and personal responsibility.
If you speak truth of me and mine, I will, if I find time and it matters to me, agree, admit, discuss, etc.
If you speak falsely of me and mine, I will, if I find time and it matters to me, disagree, deny, discuss, etc.
All of which you, in turn, will not be injured in the least by.
Now, please consider the following specifically in light of your suggestions of speaking untruths about me and mine.
My business is 100% above board, so my concerns here are zero. You'll notice that it is my action -- that of creating and maintaining a business that is, in fact, 100% above board and solidly ethical -- that insulates me completely from the ravings you postulate.
It doesn't stop you (or anyone else) from raving untruths, of course, it just means that when or if it happens, it doesn't matter to me, because I am wholly secure in my honor.
Now, if my business was shady, then I might have something to be concerned about, presuming that bothered me, which if it did, would also be my responsibility, not yours... again, the responsibility is mine, all mine.
So what you do simply cannot rise to the level of offense. All you can do is teach me to consider you as someone who has no honor; and that is a boon for me, as this gives me a clearer, more accurate image of the world, courtesy of effort expended on your part.
Think if I could get away with saying that, it might cause damage to you, and your business? Think that the content of that speech might very well be damaging?
No, in fact, you can't damage my business with those. The only way my business is affected is by other people's decisions - not yours - and you can't make those decisions for them. The most you can do is influence them, something I can also do, so that's perfectly fair. Furthermore, those people have a right to make whatever decisions they like, for whatever reasons they like, be they true, false, or wholly random, and regardless of where they get their ideas.
Some people don't do business with me because they think I'm an atheist. They're right. That's their legitimate choice anyway.
Some people don't do business with me because they think my product is over-hyped. They're wrong. That's their legitimate choice anyway.
Some people don't do business with me because of a zillion random factors.
Now here are the two key ideas that you need to understand: First, all of this is entirely within their rights.
Second, I, on the other hand, have no "right" to success in business, or life. At best, one might say I have the right to pursue such things, but few reasonable people would try to say I have a comparable right to obtain them.
This, in turn, means it is incumbent upon me - not you, or them, but me - to see to it that my pursuit of happiness is as decoupled from you and them as it can possibly be. It is my responsibility to get this done, and to put my happiness, or the pursuit of it, in the hands of only those people whom I judge worthy of same. Should I take a setback in my pursuit of happiness from that quarter, this again is my responsibility, because I made that choice and I alone am responsible for it.
So you are both not coupled to any future performance of my business in the direct manner you wish to suggest, and you are also free to say anything you like about me without my having to worry about it or respond in any way, unless I find that to be amusing for some reason.
Also, BTW, this kind of thing happens all the time. It isn't worth even raising an eyebrow over. B
So your better idea is to let rich folks pay tax only on stuff they buy, which is perhaps what they spend 10% of their income on.
Whatever they spend their income on, they pay the tax on. All spending on new goods and services. Everything. If they put the money in the bank and it does nothing, they pay nothing, and they do not benefit. If they buy something - like a 100k bond, in order to earn interest - they pay the tax. If that earned interest goes in the bank and sits, earning nothing, it isn't taxed. The minute that interest is spent on something new - it's taxed.
My idea is, you spend, you pay. You save, you don't. Everyone gets a basic tax allowance based on reasonable factors. Up to that point, you effectively pay no taxes, even if you're rich. (Of course, you can exceed that mark by simply buying a necklace if you're so inclined), after which, everything else you pay for that isn't used and of a lesser or equal value to the last time it was bought and sold, you pay taxes on.
It's not rocket science, but its way too complicated, and it unfairly penalize the rich. Why should they pay a higher percentage than you or I? Just the fact that it's a percentage already levels the playing field in a most profound manner as long as you actually collect the tax.
That's one of the key problems we face here right now is that the tax system is utterly riddled with loopholes for the rich, and we don't collect the taxes from them as we should -- it's not even close to a level playing field, the rich have it rigged from first principles.
That's why a flat sales tax is fair. That's also why it won't fly: It would make the rich pay taxes, but since the rich control our tax system, guess what.:/
the design also decreases the effective tax rate on the rich
No. Under the US system, the rich pay a smaller percentage than anyone but the poorest. Corporate example: Google pays in the single digit percentiles; that number is just a few weeks old. Rich individuals can arrange to pay even less. Under this design, the rich would pay the same percentage as everyone else, and in perfect proportion. Which is scrupulously fair. They don't get any more, or less, motive to earn than anyone else. They get that percentage, too. Everyone gets it. Persons, that is.
increases it on the poor
No. It becomes zero for the poor
increases it on... the middle class
No, it starts easier on the middle class as they pay zero tax for the same allowed sustenance value as the poor and the rich do. After that, it only increases in proportion to spending above that limit, so it can be controlled. And I should point out that the middle class currently is paying an aggregate rate of about 50% or so because of the way the income tax double-dips.
unless you want to include sale tax on stocks.
Certainly. Any retail purchase of a new product or service; any purchase of new material or service at the point it reaches its final owner. Stocks, bonds, buildings, boats, land, clothing, toilet paper, drugs, surgery, butler, maid and gardening services, fire trucks, jails, churches, fish food, fuel, statuary, art, etc. A flat tax on all retail.
However: If an item is used, that is, taxes have already been paid on it, it isn't taxable again, unless it can be shown that the new sale amount is greater than the previous taxed amount, and in that case, only the difference is taxable.
For instance, I buy a house and lot for $100k. I pay $35k in taxes. I turn around and sell it to you for $150k. You only owe $17.5k in taxes (taxes on the additional 50k of new value.) If I sell it to you for $100k or less, no tax is due. This is another mechanism to prevent double dipping by the government, which has demonstrated it is inherently greedy and will do so everywhere from auctions to garage sales to inherited property and so on.
If you buy something new for any purpose other than immediate resale as an integral component of something else specifically made for resale to someone else, not the current buyer's use (so a contractor could buy wood and screws, a computer manufacturer could buy ram and motherboards, a grocery store could buy groceries and TP, or a plumber could buy pipe and fittings), it would be considered retail and taxable.
Where in the constitution is the federal government authorized to implement a national sales tax?
It isn't. It would take a constitutional convention to legitimately gain such authority. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it's something we've needed to do for quite a while, for any number of reasons. And it's a far better thing than what they do now, which is whatever they want, regardless of what the constitution says.
Any further questions? That was a pretty good one, by the way. Not that the mods are likely to pay any attention, sorry...:)
I wish you had read the thread instead of just replying to a sentence or two. You're entirely missing the point. Which is just what they want you to do. I've written this (again) just for you. So please do me the courtesy of reading the whole thing.
No, it most certainly is not. Someone making that little is tax-exempt and need not even file.
ok, right. Now here we go with what happens from there:
Now, the guy hasn't filed, and hasn't paid, right? And he's got the whole $100 he earned. He pays that to you so you'll do some work for him. YOU, however, are not poor, and if you have a 35% tax rate, you'll pay $35 of that $100 to the taxman.
Now, are you going to give the guy $100 worth of work, considering you only KEPT $65, or are you going to limit it to $65? And if he's only getting $65 worth of work out of his $100 because of that tax hit on the worker side of his transaction, what is his effective tax rate?
So they go to jail. Same as now if they don't pay the income taxes. Or it's collected monthly. Or daily. Or collected often AND they go to jail if they screw up.
This is a design that will work -- be fair and not be regressive -- if the rules are followed. Right now, if the rules are followed for the current system, things don't work -- that is, it's not even remotely fair (the rich often pay low or no taxes, while the middle class effective rate is over 50%), and it's highly regressive, that is, the poor pay significant taxes no matter how poor they are.
One thing about it is since the rules are a lot simpler, it's a lot easier to tell if someone is in compliance. So in that sense, for rulebreakers, it's going to be easier to catch them.
The ideal path is the one with the least complexity and cost that is still fair. That's why figuring out an allowance for survival level on a per-person basis is better. You figure it out once, thereafter you pay out that tax liability every month, preferably electronically so there isn't even an added postage or printing cost.
If the rate is 35% and the level is $1000 per month (not saying that's reasonable, just using numbers so the math can be demonstrated in a concrete manner), everyone gets $350 and this covers the taxes for that minimum survival level - heat, water, rent/mortgage, food etc. -- that each person is expected to have to pay out.
Under such a scheme, there are no exceptions to paying retail tax, which makes checkout many times simpler and faster, no one has to be concerned about which items are exempt and which are not (because nothing is), there's no income tax infrastructure... it's just dead simple, as well as scrupulously fair and not regressive (it can actually land the poor an almost exact 0% tax rate, which nothing else I know of can get even close to), which is why I favor it over anything else I've heard (so far.)
It amounts to the same thing. The workers who make the product pay income tax, the corporation pays taxes on any profits it can't hide, all this income comes from the corporation, but all of the corporation's income comes from the sale of the product or service.
When the poor person, supposedly at the 0 tax level, buys that product, all those taxes are built right into it because in the end, that's the only place the money can come from. This would be fine if the poor could be exempt from it up to a survival level, but that's almost impossible to do without a known flat rate to recompense them at because as you say, tax structures vary enormously. Which is one of the huge flaws in the current system. Look at Google paying a few percent as compared to the rate I pay, which is well over ten times that. And I assure you, I don't make as much as Google does.
So again, a retail flat tax with survival level support for everyone built in cuts right through all the problems. Tax collection, the IRS itself, all the corporate nonsense about figuring out and collecting employee taxes, accountants... it all goes away. You pay x% on retail purchases, you deposit your monthly government tax refund (or they electronically stuff it in your bank) and you're done.
Not that I believe it'll ever get implemented, of course, because it removes the special advantages for the rich and outright levels the playing field -- and they'll never stand for that -- but it's actually a fair solution.
I didn't say it was part of the same transaction. You did.
I was simply suggesting a similar expense in the plumber's life, which he pays for out of his income. Presumably anything he isn't paying taxes on, he made no profit from, so it isn't part of his income - it's irrelevant. Call it what he paid the doctor, or the grocery store, or the gardener. Doesn't matter.
The point is, he pays X% on his income, and for whatever part of his income you give him, you're *also* giving him the tax money he'll pay as income tax. He has to pay that out, and only gets to spend what remains. Not only does it work exactly that way, it is absolutely unavoidable.
Because what he gets from you as income will be taxed, he can only afford to give you enough service to account for what he actually gets. Otherwise, he'll be losing money per transaction -- doing work for you that he doesn't get the income for.
Seems easily dealt with, though. Go to ebay, buy a cheap older receiver (pre-HDMI) that has outputs to drive external amps, and at least one optical audio input with decode support. That'd be most of them from a several year span. Like this one. It's cheap as I write this, but if it doesn't end that way, there's always something on there. Both my Sony and my Denon have analog outputs that can output the decode from the toslink optical inputs.
Even a parts unit would likely work - amps are usually what fail.
Plug in your optical source, set the old receiver to that, set the decoding to 5.1, take the analog signal from the amp outputs, and your problem is solved, no?
A sales tax needs to be federal in order to work. Montana has zero sales tax; consequently, we (Montana residents) are inclined to buy locally if the price itself is competitive. The second a Montana sales tax was implemented, there would be little reason to buy locally.
A national sales tax with a built-in "poverty threshold" is definitely the way to go. Not only can it put the weight of the tax where it needs to be -- on activities above the poverty level -- it eliminates the hugely regressive hidden tax-again feature of the income tax that hits *everyone* equally no matter how poor, and it encourages both earning and saving.
If you think income tax is fair, you simply don't understand how it works. Even if your tax rate is zero - say you earn $5000 a year - your $5000 is still taxed at the average rate. For instance, if the plumber is paying 35%, and you pay some of your supposedly non-taxed $5000 to the plumber to fix your leak, 35% of what you gave him goes right to the government; this increases your cost of service by about 1.5 times. In other words, you actually paid the plumber $65, and of course, that's as much, or more, than the service you got, and you paid the government $35; every transaction you make with your $5000 will be hit with the "hidden" income tax applied to whomever you paid it to, and you will get that much less service, goods, etc. In the end, you pay about the average rate.
For the plumber, the effect is stronger. He's paying 35%, so you give him $100, he gets to keep only $65. Then he has to give that to the electrician, who is also paying 35%, and so the electrician pays $22.75 to the income tax and gives out (at most) $42.50 worth of service to the plumber. So the net tax rate on the plumber for that transaction is 57.75%.
The most important point, however, is that the poorest folk cannot escape the second, hidden income tax. Which is why income tax is, by its very nature, regressive.
On the other hand, if the national retail sales tax is 35%, and the essential survival costs per person are deemed to be $1000 per month, the government sends *everyone* a check for $350 at the beginning of the month. This way, the tax obligations of that thousand dollars are covered, which means that enough for survival basics are tax free. everything is taxed at retail; no exceptions. Everything. Anything you spend per-person beyond your $1000 is considered non-essential, and you do pay taxes for it.
There is no double-taxing. Everything is taxed one time, at retail. No double-dipping on resale of used goods, no double dipping on incomes, etc. You can control your tax rate directly. The IRS and a zillion lines of tax law could be eliminated completely. It is better in every way possible, and it is in no way regressive - unlike income tax. Poor folk could actually exist completely tax-free under such a system. They cannot, with an income tax. You could send them a check that covers the average income tax rate double dip; but because that rate varies (a lot), some would be overpaid, and some under. it only really works properly if the tax rate is flat -- and that's another thing a national sales tax that replaces the income tax would deliver -- a proper flat rate system.
Yeah... but "forking out for the high-end model" is a majestic $99 -- exactly the same as the AppleTV, which is barely compatible with anything, doesn't do component video or analog audio, can't support a DVI connection properly, doesn't do SD (and so has no composite connection either)... It seems to me that if you're committing to a device that's going to entertain you for years, the difference between $60 (low end Roku) and $99 (XDS, the model with everything) should direct everyone right to the XDS. It's a $30 one-time cost difference that is justified by tons of long-term payback. Maybe I'm crazy, but to me, that seems affordable to almost anyone.
Roku XDS has analog audio outputs, they work just fine with gear from 1960's Marantz tube classics to whatever else you have. Classic gear owners haven't been completely forgotten.:)
We've got a Roku XDS, and we didn't buy it to watch garden-variety television. It does Internet radio, a large variety of channels, also Pandora, and that alone might get it a place in my media cabinet, but that's not all by any means. There's NASA TV and SpaceVidCast, news sources, iTunes access, flickr, Khan academy (math, science, economics)... all that and I've barely scratched the surface of the non-TV content.
As for "gems", Netflix seems to be ahead on that score. They've really got a decent variety of movies, and they're starting to pick up some of the edgy cable shows like Weeds, too. The Netflix capability of the Roku is excellent.
It's also worth mentioning (especially here on Slashdot) that the Roku's "channel" mechanism is implemented by an open-source kit; anyone can create a channel, and any content that isn't outright illegal is good to go. For example, they've got a porn channel, fairly basic - there's a BDSM component, a gay component, and a hetero component; doesn't show up on the site (these are called "hidden" channels) but getting to it is no problem when you find the offer for the channel (it's called EVTV, that's enough to track it down.)
The fact that there's a lot of crap out there in no way says that you have to watch (or listen) to it. On the other hand, if you're a connoisseur of crap, well, there's no shortage, that's for certain.:)
The XDS has some problems yet, notably a really lame and broken wifi setup (you're MUCH better off to set it up as wired ethernet until they fix that) and a few annoying bugs like the radio app being unable to "favorite" a station that's been found by search, but these are pretty minor compared to the latest AppleTV's inability to support many DVI connections, component systems, or work in anything other than HDMI/720p.
As a user of both, the Roku is the *far* better unit. Hugely better connectivity (component and composite, analog audio, none of which are available on the Apple unit, also properly supports DVI, again, not available from Apple), better compatibility (any HD mode up to 1080p plus SD, the Apple only does 720p), standard USB connection for your media files up front and handy (the AppleTV's USB connection is in the rear and doesn't appear to be supported except for upgrading), the Ethernet connection is better, sporting connect and speed LEDs, even a better remote (Apple's is typically minimalist, and consequently, as usual, functionally retarded. You end up navigating a lot more than with the Roku, for instance.) Both support wifi, ethernet, physical HDMI and TosLink optical audio. the Roku is also far ahead in content at present. Considering they're both the same price, as far as I'm concerned it's a slam-dunk in favor of the Roku XDS,
I have no relationship with either company other than as a customer.
Slashdot Mirror
The bank pays tax on the interest it earns. The rich person pays tax on the interest *they* earn. Money that just sits, for instance in a checking account that doesn't earn interest and isn't collateralized in some manner, isn't taxable. But it isn't doing anything, either. If it is collateral, for instance on a credit line, that credit line is taxable the instant it is issued, and for the full amount of the line. When new value is transferred, the tax applies. No loopholes.
The investor pays taxes on stocks, bonds, etc. Same rate. And also on any income gained from those investments. No exceptions.
Any money put to work on new goods or services or instruments, is taxed. Any money put to work on used goods is taxed if the purchase price exceeds the previous value on which taxes were paid. For instance, I sell you a new house for $100k. You pay $35k in taxes. You resell the house for $150k. The new buyer pays $17.5k in taxes (on the 50k price increase.) Or, you sell the house for $75k; the buyer does not pay taxes on the purchase (because this value has already been taxed -- no double dipping.)
No, not at all. I was just trying to show how percentages act across widely diverse income levels.
My flat tax concept is designed both to completely eliminate the highly regressive effects of the income tax on the poor, and to eliminate all tax loopholes, large and small, obsolete the vast bulk of the IRS, encourage investment and savings, and simplify tax collection enormously. It can be extended from the federal level to the state level easily, too, though it'd be a bear to do -- and as pointed out earlier, it'd take a constitutional convention to legitimately obtain the authority for any of this.
My method builds in a true zero tax liability structure up to a defined "poverty" level, which may be determined as locally as desired down to the individual, or as globally as the entire population. Individually is most accurate; globally is least expensive. Some level of compromise is called for.
Every new transaction (land, buildings, services, stocks, goods, diapers, TP, gardening, etc.) is taxed at the same rate; used items are taxed if they have gained in sales price and then, only for the amount gained. No double (or more) dipping.
Basically, each person is given a tax allowance at the beginning of each month. For instance, if the poverty level is determined to be $2000 in monthly spending, and the tax rate is 35%, then each person gets a check for $700.
This completely covers the tax liability for all spending up to that $2000 level. Over that, everyone has to come up with their own tax dollars. In this way, basic needs are wholly tax free for everyone -- no matter what your income -- and everything else, isn't. Totally level playing field at the bottom, totally proportional playing field elsewhere.
With the check arriving at the beginning of the month, and disbursed as tax fees by the end, there is no ongoing cost for the tax mechanism other than check distribution; electronic distribution would be preferable as it can be zero cost.
Of course, both the 35% tax rate and the $2000 poverty level are hand waving. Those would have to be carefully determined in order for the government to recoup the funds needed and for the poor to be served appropriately.
Here are three short cartoons that go over the basics:
ok, well, as I said, you're certainly entitled. We'll agree to disagree.
As for a flat tax, I think you're looking at about 35% or so. If it were viable, which again, not likely.
You don't need to tax them at higher rates. Percentages already do that. Just tax them at a flat rate.
Do the math. You get taxed 10% on $25,000.00, they take two thousand, five hundred bucks from you. They tax some rich person at 10% on twenty million dollars, and they take two million dollars from them.
Flat tax, two people contributing, one is you at about two thousand, five hundred bucks the other is the rich guy at two million dollars. Total is two million, two thousand five hundred dollars. Of which YOU paid about 1/800th of the total. Say they build a highway from this taxation. Now you and the rich guy can drive on it. Does that feel like you're not "redistributing the wealth"?
Isn't that enough, without the rich guy paying an even higher percentage?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but me, I'm not rich, yet a flat tax rate seems pretty severe already, and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. The problem as I see it is that the rich aren't paying that rate. Look at what Google just paid in taxes. And it's perfectly legal, by which I mean to say it's perfectly broken.
It was just an example. It's still just $38 as I write this. Your complaint was decoders were as expensive as the XDS. I'm pointing out that EBay (or a good will shop, or a dumpster, or your brother's uncle's sister's aunt) can get you a (very good!) decoder for less from the zillions of used stereos that are out there. It's your job to find one that is in your country and in your price range. I can't do *everything* for you. Isn't it enough that I pointed out that your problem can be solved? Now get to work and solve the problem. :)
Say anything you want, doesn't intimidate me in the least. Speech is harmless. Libel and slander are completely imaginary injuries, crafted by those who fail to comprehend liberty and personal responsibility.
If you speak truth of me and mine, I will, if I find time and it matters to me, agree, admit, discuss, etc.
If you speak falsely of me and mine, I will, if I find time and it matters to me, disagree, deny, discuss, etc.
All of which you, in turn, will not be injured in the least by.
Now, please consider the following specifically in light of your suggestions of speaking untruths about me and mine.
My business is 100% above board, so my concerns here are zero. You'll notice that it is my action -- that of creating and maintaining a business that is, in fact, 100% above board and solidly ethical -- that insulates me completely from the ravings you postulate.
It doesn't stop you (or anyone else) from raving untruths, of course, it just means that when or if it happens, it doesn't matter to me, because I am wholly secure in my honor.
Now, if my business was shady, then I might have something to be concerned about, presuming that bothered me, which if it did, would also be my responsibility, not yours... again, the responsibility is mine, all mine.
So what you do simply cannot rise to the level of offense. All you can do is teach me to consider you as someone who has no honor; and that is a boon for me, as this gives me a clearer, more accurate image of the world, courtesy of effort expended on your part.
No, in fact, you can't damage my business with those. The only way my business is affected is by other people's decisions - not yours - and you can't make those decisions for them. The most you can do is influence them, something I can also do, so that's perfectly fair. Furthermore, those people have a right to make whatever decisions they like, for whatever reasons they like, be they true, false, or wholly random, and regardless of where they get their ideas.
Some people don't do business with me because they think I'm an atheist. They're right. That's their legitimate choice anyway.
Some people don't do business with me because they think my product is over-hyped. They're wrong. That's their legitimate choice anyway.
Some people don't do business with me because of a zillion random factors.
Now here are the two key ideas that you need to understand: First, all of this is entirely within their rights.
Second, I, on the other hand, have no "right" to success in business, or life. At best, one might say I have the right to pursue such things, but few reasonable people would try to say I have a comparable right to obtain them.
This, in turn, means it is incumbent upon me - not you, or them, but me - to see to it that my pursuit of happiness is as decoupled from you and them as it can possibly be. It is my responsibility to get this done, and to put my happiness, or the pursuit of it, in the hands of only those people whom I judge worthy of same. Should I take a setback in my pursuit of happiness from that quarter, this again is my responsibility, because I made that choice and I alone am responsible for it.
So you are both not coupled to any future performance of my business in the direct manner you wish to suggest, and you are also free to say anything you like about me without my having to worry about it or respond in any way, unless I find that to be amusing for some reason.
Also, BTW, this kind of thing happens all the time. It isn't worth even raising an eyebrow over. B
No, but keep trying. At least you're thinking about it.
Listen to yourself:
Whatever they spend their income on, they pay the tax on. All spending on new goods and services. Everything. If they put the money in the bank and it does nothing, they pay nothing, and they do not benefit. If they buy something - like a 100k bond, in order to earn interest - they pay the tax. If that earned interest goes in the bank and sits, earning nothing, it isn't taxed. The minute that interest is spent on something new - it's taxed.
My idea is, you spend, you pay. You save, you don't. Everyone gets a basic tax allowance based on reasonable factors. Up to that point, you effectively pay no taxes, even if you're rich. (Of course, you can exceed that mark by simply buying a necklace if you're so inclined), after which, everything else you pay for that isn't used and of a lesser or equal value to the last time it was bought and sold, you pay taxes on.
People who break the law in corporations can, and should, go to jail. We don't see it nearly enough, but we do see it.
It's not rocket science, but its way too complicated, and it unfairly penalize the rich. Why should they pay a higher percentage than you or I? Just the fact that it's a percentage already levels the playing field in a most profound manner as long as you actually collect the tax.
That's one of the key problems we face here right now is that the tax system is utterly riddled with loopholes for the rich, and we don't collect the taxes from them as we should -- it's not even close to a level playing field, the rich have it rigged from first principles.
That's why a flat sales tax is fair. That's also why it won't fly: It would make the rich pay taxes, but since the rich control our tax system, guess what. :/
No. Under the US system, the rich pay a smaller percentage than anyone but the poorest. Corporate example: Google pays in the single digit percentiles; that number is just a few weeks old. Rich individuals can arrange to pay even less. Under this design, the rich would pay the same percentage as everyone else, and in perfect proportion. Which is scrupulously fair. They don't get any more, or less, motive to earn than anyone else. They get that percentage, too. Everyone gets it. Persons, that is.
No. It becomes zero for the poor
No, it starts easier on the middle class as they pay zero tax for the same allowed sustenance value as the poor and the rich do. After that, it only increases in proportion to spending above that limit, so it can be controlled. And I should point out that the middle class currently is paying an aggregate rate of about 50% or so because of the way the income tax double-dips.
Certainly. Any retail purchase of a new product or service; any purchase of new material or service at the point it reaches its final owner. Stocks, bonds, buildings, boats, land, clothing, toilet paper, drugs, surgery, butler, maid and gardening services, fire trucks, jails, churches, fish food, fuel, statuary, art, etc. A flat tax on all retail.
However: If an item is used, that is, taxes have already been paid on it, it isn't taxable again, unless it can be shown that the new sale amount is greater than the previous taxed amount, and in that case, only the difference is taxable.
For instance, I buy a house and lot for $100k. I pay $35k in taxes. I turn around and sell it to you for $150k. You only owe $17.5k in taxes (taxes on the additional 50k of new value.) If I sell it to you for $100k or less, no tax is due. This is another mechanism to prevent double dipping by the government, which has demonstrated it is inherently greedy and will do so everywhere from auctions to garage sales to inherited property and so on.
If you buy something new for any purpose other than immediate resale as an integral component of something else specifically made for resale to someone else, not the current buyer's use (so a contractor could buy wood and screws, a computer manufacturer could buy ram and motherboards, a grocery store could buy groceries and TP, or a plumber could buy pipe and fittings), it would be considered retail and taxable.
It isn't. It would take a constitutional convention to legitimately gain such authority. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it's something we've needed to do for quite a while, for any number of reasons. And it's a far better thing than what they do now, which is whatever they want, regardless of what the constitution says.
Any further questions? That was a pretty good one, by the way. Not that the mods are likely to pay any attention, sorry... :)
I wish you had read the thread instead of just replying to a sentence or two. You're entirely missing the point. Which is just what they want you to do. I've written this (again) just for you. So please do me the courtesy of reading the whole thing.
ok, right. Now here we go with what happens from there:
Now, the guy hasn't filed, and hasn't paid, right? And he's got the whole $100 he earned. He pays that to you so you'll do some work for him. YOU, however, are not poor, and if you have a 35% tax rate, you'll pay $35 of that $100 to the taxman.
Now, are you going to give the guy $100 worth of work, considering you only KEPT $65, or are you going to limit it to $65? And if he's only getting $65 worth of work out of his $100 because of that tax hit on the worker side of his transaction, what is his effective tax rate?
35%.
If that's still not clear, try this:
ok, in cartoon form:
So they go to jail. Same as now if they don't pay the income taxes. Or it's collected monthly. Or daily. Or collected often AND they go to jail if they screw up.
This is a design that will work -- be fair and not be regressive -- if the rules are followed. Right now, if the rules are followed for the current system, things don't work -- that is, it's not even remotely fair (the rich often pay low or no taxes, while the middle class effective rate is over 50%), and it's highly regressive, that is, the poor pay significant taxes no matter how poor they are.
One thing about it is since the rules are a lot simpler, it's a lot easier to tell if someone is in compliance. So in that sense, for rulebreakers, it's going to be easier to catch them.
The ideal path is the one with the least complexity and cost that is still fair. That's why figuring out an allowance for survival level on a per-person basis is better. You figure it out once, thereafter you pay out that tax liability every month, preferably electronically so there isn't even an added postage or printing cost.
If the rate is 35% and the level is $1000 per month (not saying that's reasonable, just using numbers so the math can be demonstrated in a concrete manner), everyone gets $350 and this covers the taxes for that minimum survival level - heat, water, rent/mortgage, food etc. -- that each person is expected to have to pay out.
Under such a scheme, there are no exceptions to paying retail tax, which makes checkout many times simpler and faster, no one has to be concerned about which items are exempt and which are not (because nothing is), there's no income tax infrastructure... it's just dead simple, as well as scrupulously fair and not regressive (it can actually land the poor an almost exact 0% tax rate, which nothing else I know of can get even close to), which is why I favor it over anything else I've heard (so far.)
It amounts to the same thing. The workers who make the product pay income tax, the corporation pays taxes on any profits it can't hide, all this income comes from the corporation, but all of the corporation's income comes from the sale of the product or service.
When the poor person, supposedly at the 0 tax level, buys that product, all those taxes are built right into it because in the end, that's the only place the money can come from. This would be fine if the poor could be exempt from it up to a survival level, but that's almost impossible to do without a known flat rate to recompense them at because as you say, tax structures vary enormously. Which is one of the huge flaws in the current system. Look at Google paying a few percent as compared to the rate I pay, which is well over ten times that. And I assure you, I don't make as much as Google does.
So again, a retail flat tax with survival level support for everyone built in cuts right through all the problems. Tax collection, the IRS itself, all the corporate nonsense about figuring out and collecting employee taxes, accountants... it all goes away. You pay x% on retail purchases, you deposit your monthly government tax refund (or they electronically stuff it in your bank) and you're done.
Not that I believe it'll ever get implemented, of course, because it removes the special advantages for the rich and outright levels the playing field -- and they'll never stand for that -- but it's actually a fair solution.
I didn't say it was part of the same transaction. You did.
I was simply suggesting a similar expense in the plumber's life, which he pays for out of his income. Presumably anything he isn't paying taxes on, he made no profit from, so it isn't part of his income - it's irrelevant. Call it what he paid the doctor, or the grocery store, or the gardener. Doesn't matter.
The point is, he pays X% on his income, and for whatever part of his income you give him, you're *also* giving him the tax money he'll pay as income tax. He has to pay that out, and only gets to spend what remains. Not only does it work exactly that way, it is absolutely unavoidable.
Because what he gets from you as income will be taxed, he can only afford to give you enough service to account for what he actually gets. Otherwise, he'll be losing money per transaction -- doing work for you that he doesn't get the income for.
Sorry, missed the 5.1 thing.
Seems easily dealt with, though. Go to ebay, buy a cheap older receiver (pre-HDMI) that has outputs to drive external amps, and at least one optical audio input with decode support. That'd be most of them from a several year span. Like this one. It's cheap as I write this, but if it doesn't end that way, there's always something on there. Both my Sony and my Denon have analog outputs that can output the decode from the toslink optical inputs.
Even a parts unit would likely work - amps are usually what fail.
Plug in your optical source, set the old receiver to that, set the decoding to 5.1, take the analog signal from the amp outputs, and your problem is solved, no?
Income tax is precisely how it works, son. Welcome to the real world.
A sales tax needs to be federal in order to work. Montana has zero sales tax; consequently, we (Montana residents) are inclined to buy locally if the price itself is competitive. The second a Montana sales tax was implemented, there would be little reason to buy locally.
A national sales tax with a built-in "poverty threshold" is definitely the way to go. Not only can it put the weight of the tax where it needs to be -- on activities above the poverty level -- it eliminates the hugely regressive hidden tax-again feature of the income tax that hits *everyone* equally no matter how poor, and it encourages both earning and saving.
If you think income tax is fair, you simply don't understand how it works. Even if your tax rate is zero - say you earn $5000 a year - your $5000 is still taxed at the average rate. For instance, if the plumber is paying 35%, and you pay some of your supposedly non-taxed $5000 to the plumber to fix your leak, 35% of what you gave him goes right to the government; this increases your cost of service by about 1.5 times. In other words, you actually paid the plumber $65, and of course, that's as much, or more, than the service you got, and you paid the government $35; every transaction you make with your $5000 will be hit with the "hidden" income tax applied to whomever you paid it to, and you will get that much less service, goods, etc. In the end, you pay about the average rate.
For the plumber, the effect is stronger. He's paying 35%, so you give him $100, he gets to keep only $65. Then he has to give that to the electrician, who is also paying 35%, and so the electrician pays $22.75 to the income tax and gives out (at most) $42.50 worth of service to the plumber. So the net tax rate on the plumber for that transaction is 57.75%.
The most important point, however, is that the poorest folk cannot escape the second, hidden income tax. Which is why income tax is, by its very nature, regressive.
On the other hand, if the national retail sales tax is 35%, and the essential survival costs per person are deemed to be $1000 per month, the government sends *everyone* a check for $350 at the beginning of the month. This way, the tax obligations of that thousand dollars are covered, which means that enough for survival basics are tax free. everything is taxed at retail; no exceptions. Everything. Anything you spend per-person beyond your $1000 is considered non-essential, and you do pay taxes for it.
There is no double-taxing. Everything is taxed one time, at retail. No double-dipping on resale of used goods, no double dipping on incomes, etc. You can control your tax rate directly. The IRS and a zillion lines of tax law could be eliminated completely. It is better in every way possible, and it is in no way regressive - unlike income tax. Poor folk could actually exist completely tax-free under such a system. They cannot, with an income tax. You could send them a check that covers the average income tax rate double dip; but because that rate varies (a lot), some would be overpaid, and some under. it only really works properly if the tax rate is flat -- and that's another thing a national sales tax that replaces the income tax would deliver -- a proper flat rate system.
Yeah... but "forking out for the high-end model" is a majestic $99 -- exactly the same as the AppleTV, which is barely compatible with anything, doesn't do component video or analog audio, can't support a DVI connection properly, doesn't do SD (and so has no composite connection either)... It seems to me that if you're committing to a device that's going to entertain you for years, the difference between $60 (low end Roku) and $99 (XDS, the model with everything) should direct everyone right to the XDS. It's a $30 one-time cost difference that is justified by tons of long-term payback. Maybe I'm crazy, but to me, that seems affordable to almost anyone.
Roku XDS has analog audio outputs, they work just fine with gear from 1960's Marantz tube classics to whatever else you have. Classic gear owners haven't been completely forgotten. :)
Both AppleTv and the Roku XDS include TosLink optical audio; works great on both - I own both and use the TosLink audio connections for audio.
We've got a Roku XDS, and we didn't buy it to watch garden-variety television. It does Internet radio, a large variety of channels, also Pandora, and that alone might get it a place in my media cabinet, but that's not all by any means. There's NASA TV and SpaceVidCast, news sources, iTunes access, flickr, Khan academy (math, science, economics)... all that and I've barely scratched the surface of the non-TV content.
As for "gems", Netflix seems to be ahead on that score. They've really got a decent variety of movies, and they're starting to pick up some of the edgy cable shows like Weeds, too. The Netflix capability of the Roku is excellent.
It's also worth mentioning (especially here on Slashdot) that the Roku's "channel" mechanism is implemented by an open-source kit; anyone can create a channel, and any content that isn't outright illegal is good to go. For example, they've got a porn channel, fairly basic - there's a BDSM component, a gay component, and a hetero component; doesn't show up on the site (these are called "hidden" channels) but getting to it is no problem when you find the offer for the channel (it's called EVTV, that's enough to track it down.)
The fact that there's a lot of crap out there in no way says that you have to watch (or listen) to it. On the other hand, if you're a connoisseur of crap, well, there's no shortage, that's for certain. :)
The XDS has some problems yet, notably a really lame and broken wifi setup (you're MUCH better off to set it up as wired ethernet until they fix that) and a few annoying bugs like the radio app being unable to "favorite" a station that's been found by search, but these are pretty minor compared to the latest AppleTV's inability to support many DVI connections, component systems, or work in anything other than HDMI/720p.
As a user of both, the Roku is the *far* better unit. Hugely better connectivity (component and composite, analog audio, none of which are available on the Apple unit, also properly supports DVI, again, not available from Apple), better compatibility (any HD mode up to 1080p plus SD, the Apple only does 720p), standard USB connection for your media files up front and handy (the AppleTV's USB connection is in the rear and doesn't appear to be supported except for upgrading), the Ethernet connection is better, sporting connect and speed LEDs, even a better remote (Apple's is typically minimalist, and consequently, as usual, functionally retarded. You end up navigating a lot more than with the Roku, for instance.) Both support wifi, ethernet, physical HDMI and TosLink optical audio. the Roku is also far ahead in content at present. Considering they're both the same price, as far as I'm concerned it's a slam-dunk in favor of the Roku XDS,
I have no relationship with either company other than as a customer.