Jump to content

Photo

WSJ Op-Ed on 91 Percent Income Tax


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

Or we can simply collect what is due. (link)

"The report said that with wage and salary information reported to the IRS on W-2 forms, only 1 percent of that income was misreported. But an estimated 56 percent of income was underreported when the government requires little or no information, such as income earned by some small businesses, renters and businesses selling property."


So a lot of the cash based people/businesses (e.g. restaurant industry) underreport. We all know that. They aren't responsible for the whole problem but according to the linked article in 2006 alone the shortfall was $450 billion. Make the cash based workers in this country pay their fair share before loading up on those that already pay the majority.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#22 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,321 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:55 AM

Or we can simply collect what is due. (link)

"The report said that with wage and salary information reported to the IRS on W-2 forms, only 1 percent of that income was misreported. But an estimated 56 percent of income was underreported when the government requires little or no information, such as income earned by some small businesses, renters and businesses selling property."


So a lot of the cash based people/businesses (e.g. restaurant industry) underreport. We all know that. They aren't responsible for the whole problem but according to the linked article in 2006 alone the shortfall was $450 billion. Make the cash based workers in this country pay their fair share before loading up on those that already pay the majority.

Seems like a good idea to me, although I imagine if it was really that simple the IRS would have fixed the problem already. Perhaps some kind of amnesty program would work? Idk why they don't go after tax offenders my guess is though if they did fiscal conservatives are going to blow it up as "Obama shakes down small businesses"
  • 0

#23 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,321 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:02 AM

Blew through all this. We get more money in the treasury when we cut taxes. It's proven.

For a long time in this country as we cute tax rates we continued to maintain to collect around 20% of GDP in revenues. However that stopped with the last few rounds of tax cuts, we did not see any attached growth, let alone enough necessary to justify keeping those cuts. That's why I am in favor or letting them lapse. We passed a saturation point where lower taxes provides a net benefit, you can't just keep cutting taxes and expect to fund a government.
  • 0

#24 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:25 PM

Or we can simply collect what is due. (link)

"The report said that with wage and salary information reported to the IRS on W-2 forms, only 1 percent of that income was misreported. But an estimated 56 percent of income was underreported when the government requires little or no information, such as income earned by some small businesses, renters and businesses selling property."


So a lot of the cash based people/businesses (e.g. restaurant industry) underreport. We all know that. They aren't responsible for the whole problem but according to the linked article in 2006 alone the shortfall was $450 billion. Make the cash based workers in this country pay their fair share before loading up on those that already pay the majority.


The cost of hiring IRS agents to investigate all of that would probably be more than the extra revenue that would be collected. I've heard stories about IRS audits of cash pizzerias that are hilarious.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#25 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,801 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:30 PM

If we stopped spending hundreds of billions of dollars on wars and stopped letting massive corporations get away with paying no taxes it would obviously help.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#26 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:44 PM

It's not about some analogy about breaking windows. People with government jobs do real, meaningful work. But even if they didn't, you are completely ignoring the economic impacts of what happens when all those people are laid off.

And I don't know the particulars about the rail in CA you are taking about, but I bet there were a lot of people like you saying the interstate system was going to be a wasteful spending project no one would ever use only to have it become vital arteries of our society. You say revenue projects are fairly useless but claim to know the value of high speed rail is nil?


California High Speed Rail summary.

http://en.wikipedia....High-Speed_Rail

Current estimate is actually $70 billion, but that will go up. That there was success with the interstate highway system does not mean that any other government funded system in the future makes sense. You know this of course.

A high speed rail ticket from New York to Boston is about $150 per person each way, or $600 round trip for two people. And that's with most of the infrastructure that was already in place, as opposed to California where they're basically starting from scratch. I do the NY to Boston trip once every few months to visit my in-laws, and I always try to drive whenever I can, just to save money. It's different than calculating tax revenue streams considering that it depends on the health of the economy, which no one can predict. I can show you the operating deficits for the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, which has more ridership than even California is predicting for its high speed rail.

At bottom though, unless you believe in the mantra that deficits and public debt don't matter, government spending does not create prosperity, although it can be helpful to ease the pain of the business cycle. If that were the case, Detroit should be a thriving city. It isn't because it doesn't have a sustainable tax base left. If the Occupy Wall Street crowd had their way and we got rid of the investment bankers, New York City would have a lot less money to spend.

And whether those government workers are "needed" is a question that can't really be answered. It's that we should not put people on the public payroll just to give people something to do. If that lead to prosperity, then we might as well have a command economy where everyone works for the government.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#27 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,321 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:52 PM

California High Speed Rail summary.

http://en.wikipedia....High-Speed_Rail

Current estimate is actually $70 billion, but that will go up. That there was success with the interstate highway system does not mean that any other government funded system in the future makes sense. You know this of course.

A high speed rail ticket from New York to Boston is about $150 per person each way, or $600 round trip for two people. And that's with most of the infrastructure that was already in place, as opposed to California where they're basically starting from scratch. I do the NY to Boston trip once every few months to visit my in-laws, and I always try to drive whenever I can, just to save money. It's different than calculating tax revenue streams considering that it depends on the health of the economy, which no one can predict. I can show you the operating deficits for the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, which has more ridership than even California is predicting for its high speed rail.

At bottom though, unless you believe in the mantra that deficits and public debt don't matter, government spending does not create prosperity, although it can be helpful to ease the pain of the business cycle. If that were the case, Detroit should be a thriving city. It isn't because it doesn't have a sustainable tax base left. If the Occupy Wall Street crowd had their way and we got rid of the investment bankers, New York City would have a lot less money to spend.

And whether those government workers are "needed" is a question that can't really be answered. It's that we should not put people on the public payroll just to give people something to do. If that lead to prosperity, then we might as well have a command economy where everyone works for the government.

I just looked online and round trip to Boston from Penn station is $200 a person if you book a month in advance. Obviously driving is going to be cheaper, especially when more people are in your car. Like i said I don't pretend know the value of highspeed rail. I know Amtrak is dependent on govt subsidies, probably not a very winning proposition, however just because its not profitable now doesn't mean it cant be an important first step. Other countries have woven in highspeed rail with their society very well, maybe we will struggle a bit at first, maybe it won't pan out but I i think infrastructure spending is generally a positive thing.

Why do you have to be so dramatic and extend everything to some ridiculous conclusion? We pay people unemployment insurance to do nothing, that's ok but the thought of putting people to work to do tasks that might not otherwise get done by the private industry is equivalent to a command economy. No one is advocating for the government to take over everything, why does that even need to get repeated?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users