Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

How to avoid paying taxes and save billions

<< < (5/6) > >>

tomos:
There's lots of fear out there too - dont put too much pressure on the corporations or they'll simply up and go. (Off-topic/ Dont put too much pressure on the banks cause people will lose faith in them.)
I dont know what the solution is but I dont see anyone trying any interesting ideas...

I listened to this video lately 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism - gotta say I found it difficult to undertand the guy cause of his accent. But anyways, he is a supporter of capitalism, but he points out that this idea of the totally-freemarket economy (which has only come to the fore in the last 30 years or so) hasn't been working and didnt work the last time it was tried (1st half of the 19th century). Watch from about min 25:00 for interesting interview about this.

Me, I dont see why corporations shouldn't be taxed 'normally', and I'm not really persuaded otherwise by anything I've read here.

And I dont know what the taxation levels are in the states and Canada, but in Germany there's already 7% sales-tax/VAT/Mehrwertsteuer on foodstuffs and 19% on everything else. Then there's your income tax. And that's normally a lot higher than 10% too, depending what you earn. (I'm not too well up on the exact income-tax system here.)

A flat 10% is not equitable as the people with more money have greater responsability and should be contributing more, and what the poor have often doesn't cover their needs.
-Perry Mowbray (October 21, 2010, 08:46 PM)
--- End quote ---

I disagree with this statement. 10% is equitable because everyone is paying an equal percentage. Now, obviously if it costs $500 a month to pay for cost of living then 10% is going to dip a lot more into the person's income who makes $500 a month than the person making $50,000/mo.-Deozaan (October 21, 2010, 08:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
Deozaan,
you've disagreed and then you make a statement that agrees... I suspect you've never lived near the poverty line, if you can so casually disagree - and yet agree :) But as Darwin says, low income earners would ideally be excluded.

MilesAhead:
Assuming you could collect the sales tax with some reliability, it should be simpler and more equitable than an income tax. Government never keeps up with the cost of living of its citizens who don't work for it. Chances are high that the income level below which you aren't taxed is not sufficient to live on.  Or if it is when the stipulation is enacted, it won't be for long.

Presumably people with a lot of money will buy more stuff and so pay more sales tax.  If you are poor and can't afford to buy steak with the tax, then you may be able to get by with hamburg.. but if they take the money out of you before you even cash your paycheck, you may not have anything to eat.

f0dder:
I'd like taxes - and the legal system - to be majorly refined, probably in every country around. Some laws are too restrictive, others are too loose... and there's way too many loopholes. Problem is, what the heck can one design that's better? Too few or too loosely defined laws, and there will be trouble. Trying to cover every situation, and you're back at a tangled mess that will still have loopholes. Same goes for taxation.

I really wish it could all be simplified and tons of special cases be weeded out, and we could get a worldwide system that's super liberal (in the freedom sense, allowing you to do pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to you or others - obviously this still means traffic rules etc, but if people want to boost themselves on chemicals, have weird sex, or whatever, let them) - but still offers a decent social security net, so that everybody will have acceptable living standards. (Let the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, but don't rip off hard-working people to support lazy bums; it's a fine balance).

Ah well, that's drifting a bit, and probably too close to being "political"; it's Utopia, anyway, and I believe mankind is greedy and egoistical by nature, and things won't get much better than they currently are.

Deozaan:
First of all let me say that it's not my intent for this post to be political. While the subject of taxation is by nature political, since some political entity must enforce the taxation, what I write below is just my opinion on a person having a right to keep their own property.

... I suspect you've never lived near the poverty line, if you can so casually disagree - and yet agree-tomos (October 22, 2010, 11:00 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't know what is considered the "poverty line" where I live. I've lived on what I consider very little compared to those in my local area, but I think that's all relative. I think in the USA what is officially considered poverty is still very much a luxury compared to some other parts of the world.

[EDIT]You got me wondering, so I looked it up. According to this chart here I've lived very near the poverty line (including below it) for a few years of the past decade. Thankfully that hasn't been the case for the past couple of years. I guess I'm moving up in the world. ;)[/EDIT]

I've pretty much always had a place to sleep, food to eat, and usually even a junker car to drive. I don't earn much, but I'm frugal and live on what I have. I don't use credit cards, I don't have car payments, and in a few months I'll have my student loan paid off and be completely debt free, which in a manner of thinking will make me one of the richest people in America.

If I continue to live in such a frugal manner and over my lifetime save up a million dollars, why should I have to pay more on taxes and social services than someone who lived lavishly and irresponsibly on credit and debt their whole life? I feel no moral obligation to prevent people from having to face the consequences of their actions and behavior.

On the other hand, I know that life isn't fair and not everyone chooses to live in the circumstances they find themselves in. That's why I personally donate more than 10% of my gross income to charitable causes (of my choice!) every month, even in times when I'm not sure I'll have enough money to make it. I don't say that to brag. What I'm saying is that I am doing what I can (and choose) with what I have, rather than demanding others do what I want with their money. If I had billions of dollars, I could certainly do a lot more. So it's my responsibility to be true to that, and if I ever get a billion dollars (which I'd surely have to earn, mind you) I'd better do a lot more than what I'm doing now.

I suppose my whole point is that individuals are generally much better stewards of their own property (money) they had to work hard for than someone else's that was just given to them. So why not let them keep as much of it as possible to use as they see fit, rather than having someone else lord over them telling them how and when it must be used?

tomos:
Good post Deo :)

I was actually thinking of the growing number of people here that work three or even more part time jobs and are still on the bread line (there's no minimum wage, pay is generally very poor for part time work) - working three jobs costs a lot more than one full one (can we afford new winter shoes?)
The whole welfare topic is a can of worms I think and maybe best left closed here.

I would say they could make life easier for the people who are working *and* on the breadline - in most countries.
People with CC debt pay through the nose for that anyway - they're probably paying more than anyone.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page