PDA

View Full Version : Some of you have been waiting for this...



Okla-homey
11/13/2008, 07:49 PM
The New Bull Moose Party Economic Plan:

Here goes. Now, canards and denials from the left notwithstanding, the simple facts are that 40% of Americans pay no federal taxes, and the top 1% of US taxpayers pay 40% of federal taxes. I would give you a cite, but I'm on a roll. We can't "raise taxes on the rich" and "give tax cuts to the middle class" without running the economy, already on the shoulder, into the ditch.

Two words will fix this economy. Flat tax. That's right. Ten cents of every dollar spent in the United States, no matter by whom, including both for-profit and non-profit corporations, illegal aliens, criminals, people who only work for cash, strippers, churches, your Aunt Suzie, every swinging dog, will go to the IRS.

The IRS in turn, will cease all forms of income taxation on people and businesses both at home and abroad. That of course includes capital gains taxes, as well as all forms of payroll taxes, including Social Security. No more filings, no more audits no more paperwork, no nothing. April 15 will become just another day on the calendar. Exemptions? NONE.

Result? Plenty of cash to do whatever we need to do for the poor folks and folks who can't help themselves while turbo-charging our economic engine. Prolly have enough for some form of national health care if that's what folks really want.

What's more, the New Bull Moose Party proposes a federal compact with any state that wants on board to collect a total of 15 cents instead of the dime on the dollar, and send that extra nickel straight to the state department of revenue. BUT, the compacting state must promise to get rid of all forms of state income taxation in return. If a state wants to continue its income tax, that's fine. States Rights and all that. But if they wanna make things simple for themselves, and make more revenue to boot, get in bed with the feds and take that .5 for every dollar spent in their state.

Next. Enough with the bail-outs already. Its mindless to take good money from profitable businesses in the form of taxes and give it to failing businesses. Let the Big Three go ahead and raise the white flag and file Ch. 11. They can then get out of their absurd collective bargaining agreements with the UAW and associated crafts, and renegotiate contracts that will allow them to operate profitably. I know, Chrysler got bailed out and came back under Lee Iacocca. But, L.I. was a visionary and his company invented the mini-van that took suburbia by storm. When was the last time The Big Three had a revolutionary idea? The Chevy Avalanche? heh. Half Pick-up, half Suburban, all Geek.

That's it in a nutshell. Broad strokes, but hey, the rest is just details.

Okay. Now, let's pick it apart and find out if there are any holes.

:pop:

SoonerStormchaser
11/13/2008, 09:09 PM
You got my vote sir!

Curly Bill
11/13/2008, 09:11 PM
So far, I'm in.

NYC Poke
11/13/2008, 09:13 PM
How are people going to feel about their churches no longer being subsidized? How will people feel about losing their mortgage interest deduction?

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a flat tax, but these are the types of hurdles you'll need to overcome to make it politically viable.

Frozen Sooner
11/13/2008, 09:25 PM
That's not a flat tax, that's a sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive by their nature.

Not saying it's a bad thing, just clarifying terminology.

SoonerStormchaser
11/13/2008, 09:27 PM
Did I miss something? When did you change your name back, Mike?

Frozen Sooner
11/13/2008, 09:33 PM
Now, looking for holes (and again, I'm not saying it's bad, just looking for things that might be attacked)

1. This plan tends to reward those who don't have to spend the majority of their income in order to keep body and soul together. As the tax system currently exists, families with children get a deduction on their taxes to recognize that kids cost money.

2. Speaking of "Big Rock Candy Mountain" you've asserted several times that this plan will increase revenues, but you've shown no proof of such an assertion. There's a legitimate argument to be had that this will encourage high earners to sock all of their money away rather than spending it. While this will keep interest rates nice and low, it will also depress GDP AND decrease tax revenue.

3. This plan tends to decrease the likelihood of a business spending money on capital improvements and expansion, as such expenditures will be taxed at the time of purchase rather than when they pay for themselves.

Just a few thoughts. Not opposed per se, just poking a stick in the weaknesses.

BigRedJed
11/13/2008, 09:35 PM
Flat tax is a straight percentage of a person's income. What Homey is touting is a sales tax. I like it, actually. But it would be a tough sell. Poor folks would pay a far higher percentage of their income under a sales tax, assuming rich folks didn't spend all of their income. Which they do not, hence the rich part.

A flat income tax is probably the most defensible tax of all. A straight percentage of everyone's income, no loopholes, no deductions, nothing.

But Homey's right; a national sales tax would sure cut down on the paperwork for everybody.

Frozen Sooner
11/13/2008, 09:37 PM
Well, so long as we agree that the primary function of the tax code is to cut down on paperwork. ;)

Ike
11/13/2008, 09:39 PM
Hole #1:
Of course there will be filing. Everyone that takes money for a service or product must file taxes. April 15 will still be a stressful day for most people.

Hole #2:
How you gonna enforce taxation on cash-only transactions? Take the example you gave of a stripper. You gonna have some bean counter head on out to the tiddy bars and count the cash in their g-strings? Or what about the 13 year old girl who babysits for the neighbors for some spending money? Is she going to have to file taxes on the money she's given? Yeah, it get's slightly easier for people using credit cards, but how long does it become then before more and more places stop accepting credit cards to dodge a little bit of taxation.

Item #3
Eliminate cap-gains...OK. Do taxes get paid on the purchase of stock?


In principle, I'm OK with the whole idea. However, I sense that for those people currently not paying taxes, they find other, rather clever, ways of keeping on avoiding taxes. They may pay some when they can't avoid it...like purchasing gas. But you can be damn sure that for other things, they get more creative. For instance, buying a used car from a friend. They 'buy' the car for one dollar, then give their friend a gift of a few hundred to a couple thousand that doesn't get reported.

Tax evasion just got a whole lot easier with a plan like this.

BigRedJed
11/13/2008, 09:41 PM
When I said I like the plan, I actually mean that it is interesting, and as far as I have thought through it since reading the first post, I don't hate it.

I do think it would be a tough sell. It would definitely shift more of the burden from the rich to the poor. If it were only the couple of cents mentioned, that doesn't seem like a bad thing at all. But I'd have to see some real math before being convinced that it wouldn't actually have to be more like 30 cents on every dollar to cover the nut that we have, collectively.

olevetonahill
11/13/2008, 09:48 PM
Its so Broken aint anything Gonna fix it .:mad:

BigRedJed
11/13/2008, 09:49 PM
Hole #1:
Of course there will be filing. Everyone that takes money for a service or product must file taxes. April 15 will still be a stressful day for most people.

Hole #2:
How you gonna enforce taxation on cash-only transactions? Take the example you gave of a stripper. You gonna have some bean counter head on out to the tiddy bars and count the cash in their g-strings? Or what about the 13 year old girl who babysits for the neighbors for some spending money? Is she going to have to file taxes on the money she's given? Yeah, it get's slightly easier for people using credit cards, but how long does it become then before more and more places stop accepting credit cards to dodge a little bit of taxation.

Item #3
Eliminate cap-gains...OK. Do taxes get paid on the purchase of stock?


In principle, I'm OK with the whole idea. However, I sense that for those people currently not paying taxes, they find other, rather clever, ways of keeping on avoiding taxes. They may pay some when they can't avoid it...like purchasing gas. But you can be damn sure that for other things, they get more creative. For instance, buying a used car from a friend. They 'buy' the car for one dollar, then give their friend a gift of a few hundred to a couple thousand that doesn't get reported.

Tax evasion just got a whole lot easier with a plan like this.
I was thinking of some of those things too. I can think of lots of ways off the top of my head that people could avoid taxes. It could also drive a lot of business out of the country. Can I buy something online from Canada and my tax savings make enough difference to make it worth the hassle? Can I have someone offshore provide legal or accounting or architectural services for me?

I do think the collection of the money could be pretty simple. Retailers in Oklahoma electronically pay sales taxes to the Oklahoma tax commission on a monthly basis. The tax commission then divvies it up to the correct county or municipality. The same type of mechanism could work here, with one entitiy collecting for all governments concerned. There would be no national filing day necessary. And since there are no loopholes or exemptions, there wouldn't be a lot of figuring and paperwork needed.

Curly Bill
11/13/2008, 10:00 PM
If nothing else this plan would get peeps to save more and spend less...

...ah hell, who am I kidding, most Mericans ain't that smart.

Jimminy Crimson
11/13/2008, 10:02 PM
Homey must've assidently swapped flat and fair...

And, he forgot to end it with 'I'm Homey and I approve this message', while looking at the camera. :texan:

BigRedJed
11/13/2008, 10:08 PM
If nothing else this plan would get rich peeps to save more and spend less...
Fixed.

Rogue
11/13/2008, 10:09 PM
Just for the sake of poking holes...This will encourage the @#$% out of buying everything from Canada or Mexico. OTOH...it will incentive exports which is a good good thing. The black market will reign supreme.

Why not a flat income tax to boot? Something modest like 5%?

Curly Bill
11/13/2008, 10:14 PM
Fixed.

Rich peeps already do that, and of course a big part of that is they do it because they can. However, the savings rate of American's pales in comparison to most, if not all, of the rest of the developed world. I don't think that's a good thing, it shows we are compulsive and not especially thoughtful when it comes to preparing for our futures.

In other words: I know poor and middle class peeps have to spend more of their income (% wise) then rich folks, but many of us could do better when it comes to saving a buck or two for a rainy day, or retirement.

tommieharris91
11/13/2008, 10:19 PM
Rich peeps already do that, and of course a big part of that is they do it because they can. However, the savings rate of American's pales in comparison to most, if not all, of the rest of the developed world. I don't think that's a good thing, it shows we are compulsive and not especially thoughtful when it comes to preparing for our futures.

In other words: I know poor and middle class peeps have to spend more of their income (% wise) then rich folks, but many of us could do better when it comes to saving a buck or two for a rainy day, or retirement.

Heh, the US saving rate is currently negative.

Okla-homey
11/14/2008, 07:13 AM
You guys are prolly right. I'm talking a comprehensive national sales tax applicable to all purchases of goods or services. My thoughts below:


Hole #1:
Of course there will be filing. Everyone that takes money for a service or product must file taxes. April 15 will still be a stressful day for most people.
Don't sellers of goods pay sales taxes systemically and at routine intervals? The point is, the average Joe Consumer won't have to file anything.
Hole #2:
How you gonna enforce taxation on cash-only transactions? Take the example you gave of a stripper. You gonna have some bean counter head on out to the tiddy bars and count the cash in their g-strings? No. But the point is, she's not paying income taxes on that money now. But when she spends that money at Christy's Toybox to buy stripper-wear, she will under the New Bull Moose Economic Plan. Or what about the 13 year old girl who babysits for the neighbors for some spending money? Is she going to have to file taxes on the money she's given? Same dealio for her. Yeah, it get's slightly easier for people using credit cards, but how long does it become then before more and more places stop accepting credit cards to dodge a little bit of taxation. There are those who would say that would be a good thing because it would make people buy local, but use of cash wouldn't necessarily make it easier to dodge sales tax. You pay sales tax on all your cash purchases of goods already don't you?
Item #3
Eliminate cap-gains...OK. Do taxes get paid on the purchase of stock?
Yep.

In principle, I'm OK with the whole idea. However, I sense that for those people currently not paying taxes, they find other, rather clever, ways of keeping on avoiding taxes. They may pay some when they can't avoid it...like purchasing gas. But you can be damn sure that for other things, they get more creative. For instance, buying a used car from a friend. They 'buy' the car for one dollar, then give their friend a gift of a few hundred to a couple thousand that doesn't get reported.
The states will be the watchdog on that as to titling said gift-mobile. You think you could walk into your tag agent and get a tag for a car you say was gifted to you? Anyway, like the babysitter example, the point is, when the money gets spent (the kickback) in your example, it will be taxed. That's one of the most attractive parts of the New Bull Moose Economic Plan. Even dirty money that now isn't taxed will be. Even dope dealers and all other forms of crook buy stuff. When that happens, they pay taxes under this plan. Currently, they don't because the mob doesn't prepare 1099's

Tax evasion just got a whole lot easier with a plan like this.

OUHOMER
11/14/2008, 07:35 AM
I like, will paypal or ebay automatically deduct the 10%.. could get interesting.

But, i like it

TUSooner
11/14/2008, 09:11 AM
IN. (but don't nobody start confuzin me wid facts and numbers and stuff.)

Ike
11/14/2008, 12:00 PM
You guys are prolly right. I'm talking a comprehensive national sales tax applicable to all purchases of goods or services. My thoughts below:

One point on the gift-mobile...yeah, I don't think it would be that hard to title a vehicle that is given to you at a steep discount, or as a gift. I've done it twice. Once when my father in law gifted us his old ride, and once when a friend of mine had to move and couldn't get rid of his car. He asked me if I would be interested in taking it off his hands for free. So I did. I got the title no problem, no taxes.

Vaevictis
11/14/2008, 12:15 PM
By requiring the payment of sales taxes on stocks (and hence also bonds, commodities, swaps, etc), you just broke multiple industries.

And not just financial ones. You broke commodity based industries too.

SoonerInKCMO
11/14/2008, 12:22 PM
How you gonna enforce taxation on cash-only transactions? Take the example you gave of a stripper. You gonna have some bean counter head on out to the tiddy bars and count the cash in their g-strings? No. But the point is, she's not paying income taxes on that money now. But when she spends that money at Christy's Toybox to buy stripper-wear, she will under the New Bull Moose Economic Plan.

BTW - Strippers are considered independent contractors and have to fill out 1099s for clubs at which they work. The clubs usually collect a stage fee as well as a portion of each lap dance fee and report worker earnings to the IRS. Strippers do indeed pay income tax.

Frozen Sooner
11/14/2008, 12:25 PM
If you're going to tax purchases of stock, you haven't eliminated capital gains tax. In fact, you're going to tax transactions where someone took a capital loss as well.

SoonerInKCMO
11/14/2008, 12:25 PM
One point on the gift-mobile...yeah, I don't think it would be that hard to title a vehicle that is given to you at a steep discount, or as a gift. I've done it twice. Once when my father in law gifted us his old ride, and once when a friend of mine had to move and couldn't get rid of his car. He asked me if I would be interested in taking it off his hands for free. So I did. I got the title no problem, no taxes.

Yep. I was surprised at how easy it is just to give someone a car and not have any problems from tax collectors for either party - especially considering we were in different states.

NormanPride
11/14/2008, 12:37 PM
I would think those laws would quickly be altered.

yermom
11/14/2008, 12:38 PM
the secondary market doesn't pay sales tax as it is

i can imagine used stuff going for more than retail at that point

NormanPride
11/14/2008, 12:47 PM
I wouldn't think any state would want to take the sales tax hike... I mean, sure it's nice for residents, but it would kill tourism. Who wants to visit a state that you have to pay more for everything, especially if your home stat does not have the same rate hike?

Though it would have the potential to increase the number of people in the smaller states. Maybe you'd see smaller states taking it to draw people, and bigger states avoiding it to keep tourism.

How would internet sales be handled? If I buy from walmart.com and Arkansas has the 15% tax but I live in Colorado that doesn't, what do I pay?

yermom
11/14/2008, 01:00 PM
yeah, the internet poses some problems...

sooner_born_1960
11/14/2008, 01:20 PM
Which state's sales tax do you pay now?

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 01:40 PM
Put me in the camp with the Flat Taxers. Flat Tax in the traditional sense, X% on income, not Fair Tax in the Neil Boortz sense.

The problem with sales tax being the basis of generated revenue for municipalities at least is in its variable nature. Sales tax, as is obvious, is rooted wholly in the consumership of the tax base. That is in a constant state of flux, pivoting on unemployment, fuel costs, the value of the dollar, overall cost of living, you guys know. The list is long and distinguished. Where we as Oklahomans are torched in my opinion is the restriction from the state constitution for municipalities to collect income based taxes. Income tax generated revenue is steady compared to sales tax generated revenue. And for the municipality to generate revenue under the current system it must draw ad valorem (with its inherent stability), sales taxes to the best of its ability, and base the municipality's expenditures on the consumer blowing his hard earned cash within the boundaries of the city. With income tax generated revenue, to increase that tax base a municipality must 1) increase the number of citizens within the tax base, 2) work to increase the number of available jobs, which in turn is checked and balanced from increases in base rate by state language that requires all tax increases go before a vote of the people. To increase revenue the municipality has to clean up their act and make themselves more attractive to residents AND business owners, which also in turn, with increased citizenry in the tax base because of infrastructural development et cetera, DECREASES urban sprawl and refocuses efforts on the core city of said metropolitan area.

Which equates to, in my opinion, sales tax = no bueno. Tulsa is a classic example. Without the insanely massive ad valorem base Oklahoma City enjoys, budgets are based on the whim of the spender, thus development ideas are based on attractions, pretty baubles like ballparks, casinos, river development, and consumer-sided tripe where I can buy a $500 purse at 10% sales tax instead of residential development and rejuvenation to bolster the population of the core city, commercial development, re-use allowances and rejuvenation of the industrial, manufacturing, and white collar city sectors, and an emphasis on the highest quality of education at all levels.

With that, the city is happy, the citizen is happy, and the basic services are provided with steady income streams. Clean water, dependable sewage, top shelf fire, police, and EMS, all that good stuff. All without dependency on ad valorem for that stable contribution to the general fund.

Okla-homey
11/14/2008, 01:43 PM
Put me in the camp with the Flat Taxers. Flat Tax in the traditional sense, X% on income, not Fair Tax in the Neil Boortz sense.




But a federal sales tax touches those millions of shady folks who fly under the radar. Even Tony Soprano would get taxed based on a federal sales tax every time he takes his crew out to dinner or buys a drink at Bada-Bing.

Okla-homey
11/14/2008, 01:46 PM
I wouldn't think any state would want to take the sales tax hike... I mean, sure it's nice for residents, but it would kill tourism. Who wants to visit a state that you have to pay more for everything, especially if your home stat does not have the same rate hike?

Though it would have the potential to increase the number of people in the smaller states. Maybe you'd see smaller states taking it to draw people, and bigger states avoiding it to keep tourism.

How would internet sales be handled? If I buy from walmart.com and Arkansas has the 15% tax but I live in Colorado that doesn't, what do I pay?

Easy. You would pay the tax based on the situs of your ISP.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 02:02 PM
But again, sales tax revenues are based entirely on folks blowing money.

To me, it's an either/or proposition. Do you, as a government, pound the podium and tell folks to spend, spend, spend, screw your savings, and enjoy the fruits of your labor as programs like Social Security are now the retirement plan of choice? Or do you pound the podium and tell folks to save, save, save which puts that money in the market, puts that money to work, and with enough incentive to prepare for retirement, eventually lessens the burden on social programs such as Social Security which in turn lessens the burden of the State to fund such programs?

Again, from what I've seen of it, sales tax may very well get in Tony Soprano's pocket. But it also gets in Granny's pocket. My pocket. Your pocket. And when it's time to start production on that new F-90whatever fighter jet that will maintain air superiority for the U.S., do you want that bankrolled on the whim of Joe Public to purchase that $500 purse? When it's time to replace your dogged out ol' Chevy truck because you just threw a rod, or to move to that 2000 sq. ft. 3 bedroom Casa Del Homey because you got another little one on the way, do you want to pay X% of the price of that sale because it's your federal tax burden? Plus the state should they participate?

Not to mention the eventual market correction in the price of goods. You start putting 30% more available income in people's pockets, it's not going to take long for businesses to realize they can start ticking up those profit margins. It's not going to take long for businesses to realize that they can decrease wages to more appropriately reflect previous levels of take home pay. And it won't take long for folks to realize they're right back in the same boat they was in before the change, except now big ticket items are a lot more expensive due to the tax, the new taxation method stacks with existing municipal taxation methods which increases the cost of necessary goods that much more, which in turn restricts spending in your economy that's wholly dependent on that $500 purse or that now $5.00 gallon of milk.

SoonerInKCMO
11/14/2008, 02:21 PM
But a federal sales tax touches those millions of shady folks who fly under the radar. Even Tony Soprano would get taxed based on a federal sales tax every time he takes his crew out to dinner or buys a drink at Bada-Bing.

I think it likely that shady folks would begin spending money in shady ways in addition to their shady methods of earning the money. Any national sales tax sufficient to replace the money currently gathered in income tax would drive a great deal of commerce to the black market.

Position Limit
11/14/2008, 02:51 PM
somewhat off topic, but why are children allowed to be claimed as a deduction? doesnt seem fair. producing more bodies to comsume more resources should'nt be rewarded, but taxed. one family has 5 kids at school and pays the same in property taxes as another family with 1 or no kids at school.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 02:52 PM
somewhat off topic, but why are children allowed to be claimed as a deduction? doesnt seem fair. producing more bodies to comsume more resources should'nt be rewarded, but taxed. one family has 5 kids at school and pays the same in property taxes as another family with 1 or no kids at school.

Are you kidding?

You gotta be kidding.

Position Limit
11/14/2008, 02:56 PM
please enlighten me

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 03:24 PM
So you're NOT kidding.

Residential ad valorem taxes aren't based on the number of people residing on the property, how many children are using the assessed taxes through public schools, how many times you drive on the street in the neighborhood, or anything else. They're based on a percentage of the overall value of the property which is leveled by millage, or one-thousandths of a dollar of the assessed value of the home.

Tax payers have homestead exemptions and senior citizen valuation limitations in Oklahoma, but cannot claim exemptions based on the number of children that reside in the home strictly for the fact that the tax rate isn't based on anything besides the value of the home. So the two 1500 square foot homes next door to each other with equal assessed values pay the exact same amount of millage.

Exemptions for children are based solely in income taxes. The logic being, the increased cost on the family to raise a child versus a family without children. It frees up income for the family to supply the basic needs of the family such as shoes, food, clothes, housing requirements, et cetera so the government doesn't have to.

With your position, because grandma only drives to church on Sunday and to get groceries on Wednesday, therefore doesn't use the streets like her neighbor does, she shouldn't pay as much property tax. Because I'm young, fairly healthy, and don't anticipate using the ambulance service, I should pay less property tax which by state law, is usable to fund EMS transport operations in a municipality. Not based on a balanced, equally applicable system such as property value (AKA property tax), but based on usage. Based on the number of children in public schools, the number of miles driven on municipal/county streets, the amount of usage you partake in capital improvements, et cetera.

That's nigh impossible to track. Amazingly easy to cheat. And kind of silly.

Frozen Sooner
11/14/2008, 03:39 PM
somewhat off topic, but why are children allowed to be claimed as a deduction? doesnt seem fair. producing more bodies to comsume more resources should'nt be rewarded, but taxed. one family has 5 kids at school and pays the same in property taxes as another family with 1 or no kids at school.

Because it's recognized that someone with more children has less in the way of disposable income than someone with fewer.

Your income taxes (as a general rule) aren't paying for schools, by the way. The vast majority of school funding comes from property taxes.

Position Limit
11/14/2008, 03:48 PM
i'm quite aware of how property taxes are levied. i'm also aware of exemptions being limited to income taxes and not property taxes. keeping property taxes and income taxes separate what's the largest allocation of dollars coming from property taxes? i'll save some more internet research. it's the public school in your district. so i'll ask again, how is it fair for one family with 7 kids to pay the same in property taxes as the family with 1 or no kids living next door in the same sized house that attend the same school?

as for your theory on child exemptions on income taxes to free up cash to pay for food clothing and shelter, i'll ask the same question again. why is fair that the family with 1 or no kids subsidize the family 2 two or more kids?

i'd advise you quit googling tax codes and think outside the box for an answer.

Frozen Sooner
11/14/2008, 03:52 PM
You know, sometimes the box is there for a damn good reason.

Your initial question was about income tax and usage of school resources by people with more children. You've now changed your question to property tax, which is a slightly more valid question.

That being said, your question is focused only on end-users, not on those who benefit from the service. It's a benefit to the community as a whole to have a good school system, not just to those who happen to use it.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 03:56 PM
Hey, check it out!

Me and Froz agree on something!

soonerscuba
11/14/2008, 03:58 PM
I would also argue that the incentive to have children is a mild way of encouraging the production of more Americans. A stagnant population growth would have some negative impacts on this country, as soon as the boomers kick the bucket we will find ourself with some spare change, but until then, we are going to need a lot of warm bodies paying taxes.

I do know that Western Europe is running into some problems as the result of negative population growth becomes more acute via supported infrastructure. I think it's getting better though, I haven't looked at the stuff in years.

Position Limit
11/14/2008, 04:03 PM
You know, sometimes the box is there for a damn good reason.

Your initial question was about income tax and usage of school resources by people with more children. You've now changed your question to property tax, which is a slightly more valid question.

That being said, your question is focused only on end-users, not on those who benefit from the service. It's a benefit to the community as a whole to have a good school system, not just to those who happen to use it.

i just addressed both income and property as it relates to the question i asked. i should have be more precise in my first post.

as for the betterment of the community, i'd like to see it quantified that how one group using more resourses than the other translates into better community or higher home values.

Position Limit
11/14/2008, 04:08 PM
I would also argue that the incentive to have children is a mild way of encouraging the production of more Americans. A stagnant population growth would have some negative impacts on this country, as soon as the boomers kick the bucket we will find ourself with some spare change, but until then, we are going to need a lot of warm bodies paying taxes.

I do know that Western Europe is running into some problems as the result of negative population growth becomes more acute via supported infrastructure. I think it's getting better though, I haven't looked at the stuff in years.

you think tax incentive is needed for propagation of the human race? if economic survival is the motive for populating america, what kind of a country will this be in 100 years?

Frozen Sooner
11/14/2008, 04:09 PM
What, you want me to provide econometric data? Sorry, I don't carry that around in my head and you've already forbidden us using internet research. ;)

If you'd like me to simply provide an explanation of how better schools benefit the community as a whole...

1) Increased property values. Quality of the local schools is certainly a factor in the decision to purchase a home, and a higher-quality school system absolutely has a positive effect on home values. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.

2) Better educated workforce. A better-educated workforce entices high-paying and high-value-added industries to relocate to the area. It also cuts down on training costs for businesses already established in the area.

3) Lower crime rates. Crime, particularly violent crime, tends to be committed by those with less education than the average.

Just off the top of my head. Probably more reasons than that, but I'm typing between balancing GLs.

NormanPride
11/14/2008, 04:17 PM
I don't have any kids and I pay to fund Tulsa schools. I have no problem with this because I may need it in the future. A family may have 2 kids currently, but what if they decide to have a few more? One could argue that you pay to keep your options open.

Position Limit
11/14/2008, 04:17 PM
What, you want me to provide econometric data? Sorry, I don't carry that around in my head and you've already forbidden us using internet research. ;)

If you'd like me to simply provide an explanation of how better schools benefit the community as a whole...

1) Increased property values. Quality of the local schools is certainly a factor in the decision to purchase a home, and a higher-quality school system absolutely has a positive effect on home values. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.

2) Better educated workforce. A better-educated workforce entices high-paying and high-value-added industries to relocate to the area. It also cuts down on training costs for businesses already established in the area.

3) Lower crime rates. Crime, particularly violent crime, tends to be committed by those with less education than the average.

Just off the top of my head. Probably more reasons than that, but I'm typing between balancing GLs.

all of which are noble pursuits, and i fully support, i just dont see the fairness in subsidizing the family with many minors of which will need more of those benefits from society than the family with fewer minors.
i did'nt intend for the to become a debate, just something to ponder in a thread directed toward fair tax, flat tax, or any tax for that matter. taxes in general.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 04:41 PM
all of which are noble pursuits, and i fully support, i just dont see the fairness in subsidizing the family with many minors of which will need more of those benefits from society than the family with fewer minors.
i did'nt intend for the to become a debate, just something to ponder in a thread directed toward fair tax, flat tax, or any tax for that matter. taxes in general.

And that, in my opinion, is where your logic is skewed. You're not subsidizing the family, you're subsidizing the efforts of the community. The community as a whole has seen fit to levy a tax based on the value of your home to fund the expenditures of that community. Tulsa, for example, charges sales tax and uses those sales tax dollars to fund the development and maintenance of parks and swimming pools. If you don't use those parks or swimming pools, should you be exempt from paying the sales tax? If so, how does the community track your usage of parks and swimming pools? If not, then your tax dollars are going to fund community projects for the usage of the community as a whole, whether you decide to engage in their use is entirely up to you. They're there.

Don't like it? That's why you have elected representation. That's why you have a vote. That's why there are public forums such as town hall meetings and city council sessions and things like the Mayor's Action Line. But don't be surprised if you're ignored. The system, in my opinion, is as fair and even as it can be.

yermom
11/14/2008, 05:02 PM
i think the question is less about schools and property taxes and more about why children are an exemption on income taxes

Vaevictis
11/14/2008, 05:05 PM
Psst, it's because we're redistributing wealth to families with children.

Vaevictis
11/14/2008, 05:06 PM
Sort of like how we like to redistribute wealth from single taxpayers to married taxpayers.

yermom
11/14/2008, 05:07 PM
socialists!

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 05:08 PM
OMG I'M A COMMUNIST

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/story/cp_flag2.gif

Good thing I voted for Chairman Maobama.

Okla-homey
11/14/2008, 05:12 PM
But again, sales tax revenues are based entirely on folks blowing money.

To me, it's an either/or proposition. Do you, as a government, pound the podium and tell folks to spend, spend, spend, screw your savings, and enjoy the fruits of your labor as programs like Social Security are now the retirement plan of choice?

That my friend, is precisely why are in this mess. And you know what, people won't change until they go thru what our grandparents went thru in the 1930's (heaven forbid)

So we might as well capitalize on it.

Tulsa_Fireman
11/14/2008, 05:17 PM
Can I have a minor ambassadorship to a small european country with access to awesome beer and sausages if I come aboard?

Okla-homey
11/14/2008, 05:18 PM
I don't have any kids and I pay to fund Tulsa schools. I have no problem with this because I may need it in the future. A family may have 2 kids currently, but what if they decide to have a few more? One could argue that you pay to keep your options open.


Just stop it. I put my kid in private school and still I paid property taxes. so there.;)

NormanPride
11/14/2008, 05:55 PM
Why do you all hate children? Why do you hate old people? Why do you hate education? Why do you hate safe driving?