Has the economy affected you and your tractors?

[FallbrookFarmer]

Fallbrook...maybe you should re-read it.

Yes, I did reread it, Read summation at the end.
You can cherry pick words here and there to prove anything

 

[coffeeman]

You can't get blood out of a turnip, so a flat tax for everyone doesn't make a lot of sense at low income/poverty levels. I'm sure our tax code needs to be simplified, it is packed full of special cases, exceptions, give aways, etc. I would say clean it up first and then see where we stand.

The majority of people did not benefit, even went backwards. Some of them are now Tea Party attendees vigorously blaming mostly the wrong people.
Dave.

Here's an idea. Why not collect the federal taxes with an expansion of the sales tax most states have. JUst think.....a click of a computer mouse and we can pay federal tax when we buy stuff. The states have collection people already in place. One bank transfer per day from the states to fed. Feds don't even need a person to open the mail since the computer will do it. Two large problems though....

1. The sales tax for the fed side would probably have to be about 40% to raise $$ the feds already collect. We already do this for gasoline tax. Thus, folks would see daily how much taxes one pays. Gee, wouldn't the tea parties get bigger?

2. Who is going to fund all the irs and accountants with their unemployment checks? Might put a few hundred thousand folks out of work. And, OH MY!! what about all those office buildings that would suddenly not be rented by government?

I don't know if this would be called a value added tax and I'm not sure what a vat is. However giant sales tax works for me.

Cheers

 

[_RaT_]

Here's an idea. Why not collect the federal taxes with an expansion of the sales tax most states have. JUst think.....a click of a computer mouse and we can pay federal tax when we buy stuff. The states have collection people already in place. One bank transfer per day from the states to fed. Feds don't even need a person to open the mail since the computer will do it. Two large problems though....

1. The sales tax for the fed side would probably have to be about 40% to raise $$ the feds already collect. We already do this for gasoline tax. Thus, folks would see daily how much taxes one pays. Gee, wouldn't the tea parties get bigger?

2. Who is going to fund all the irs and accountants with their unemployment checks? Might put a few hundred thousand folks out of work. And, OH MY!! what about all those office buildings that would suddenly not be rented by government?

I don't know if this would be called a value added tax and I'm not sure what a vat is. However giant sales tax works for me.

Cheers

OK, you can be one of the guys that gets to analyze, scrutinize any new taxes that get considered. You can pick them apart very well, kudos to you, your hired!

Is 40% sales tax a lot? Would I feel it if say I purchased a new tractor? Would it make me reconsider the purchase? Would Washington use it wisely this time? :laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[coffeeman]

OK, you can be one of the guys that gets to analyze, scrutinize any new taxes that get considered. You can pick them apart very well, kudos to you, your hired!

Is 40% sales tax a lot? Would I feel it if say I purchased a new tractor? Would it make me reconsider the purchase? Would Washington use it wisely this time? :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Thanks for the job offer! You are right 40% is a lot. Just pulled that out of my cob web infested brain. In the past I remember reading that tax freedom day was April 8th; my daughters birthday. So I used 40% and we can adjust that rate. Thats been a few years ago and I would guess tax freedom day is way later.

As for scrutinizing taxes, there would only be one tax to watch. Gee, I don't even have to go into the office to do that. I'll get the states to send me an electronic report, and... I can check report under a palm tree in Florida while surfing the net on my laptop. (If I was an ocean surfer I would check my report in Hawii.) Darn, maybe I'll just hire someone to check the report for me, thus not haveing to work at all. Of course I still want my pay check!!!

I'm sure Washington will watch spending this time. Most importantly, I'm sure D. C. is waiting for all of our suggestions from right here; TractorByNet.

Now that we have a plan, where's that palm tree????

Cheers

 

[keegs]

How about CBO numbers? Would you trust them?
If so: Washington Times yesterday "President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 Trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next ten years, 1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90% of the nations economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday"
I don't know myself, but to use a technical term that somebody else used before, I think that's a lot of "irresponsible poop"

The Washington Times? Isn't that run by the Moonies? :laughing:

FB...GHW Bush called it voodoo economics, Greg Mankiw called it snake oil and I call it irresponsible poop.

I also said that before we cut taxes (and revenue), as a country, we should decide what on the spending side we should eliminate. The implication being there's never a free lunch.

Now the Moonie's reported projections are likely based on some set of revenue and spending data over the next decade. Neither you nor I or the CBO or the Moonies for that matter, know what those data will be. Certainly entitlements and defense spending will continue to loom large in the budgets as they have. And growth and revenue forecasts are just that.

Given the hole we're in, if history is any guide, tangible progress will be made to address the nations fiscal health. Art Laffer's notion that we can cut taxes and balance the budget by now has been thoroughly discredited.

The responsible choices are what they've always been. That is to say we raise taxes, cut spending or both. You can go with the Moonies on this one but my money's on we wind up doing the right thing.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Saved from a rant by jet lag

It's all relative. I would rather donate a book to the library than pay taxes to support military adventurism for the benefit of some corporation - for example.

As to welfare, if it results in children getting the nutrition they need for a healthy mind and body, I prefer that to the alternatives -which btw cost more. Or, how about a woman with or without children escaping an abusive partner? How about a family made destitute by huge medical bills or an out-sourced job? There are many situations people can find themselves in that aren't the stereotyped deadbeat.

The welfare should be reasonable and a bridge to a return to financial soundness with clear expectations. I think that is where welfare often fails and consequently people resent paying for it. I don't think people resent offering a helping hand where needed. The coins and bills in the collection jars at stores are a testament to that - not to be confused with the health care plan envisioned by some
Dave.

Hey Dave,
Here,s an idea, How's about we have a flat tax on any income over, say, ?35K. Whatever the percentage is 15-25-35, whatever. That way anyone who is low income wouldn't pay anything, pretty much the way it is now. But instead of a progressive tax, which in essence punishes success, you have a flat tax on income. What do you think?
I think it is pretty clear from the numbers posted by MikePA that the outcome will be MORE revenue to the govt.
So, "poor people pay no tax, the rich pay a "FAIR" share, because after all, how much more fair can a percentage of income be?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

The Washington Times? Isn't that run by the Moonies? :laughing:

FB...GHW Bush called it voodoo economics, Greg Mankiw called it snake oil and I call it irresponsible poop.

I also said that before we cut taxes (and revenue), as a country, we should decide what on the spending side we should eliminate. The implication being there's never a free lunch.

Now the Moonie's reported projections are likely based on some set of revenue and spending data over the next decade. Neither you nor I or the CBO or the Moonies for that matter, know what those data will be. Certainly entitlements and defense spending will continue to loom large in the budgets as they have. And growth and revenue forecasts are just that.

Given the hole we're in, if history is any guide, tangible progress will be made to address the nations fiscal health. Art Laffer's notion that we can cut taxes and balance the budget by now has been thoroughly discredited.

The responsible choices are what they've always been. That is to say we raise taxes, cut spending or both. You can go with the Moonies on this one but my money's on we wind up doing the right thing.

The CBO, isnt that run by Congress?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

One other observation
The income tax was enacted in 1913.
Only a handful of millionaires(billionaires today) paid any tax
The form was one page long.
I can hardly wait till the 2000+page health care bill starts!
Happy Days!

 

[dave1949]

Hey Dave,
Here,s an idea, How's about we have a flat tax on any income over, say, ?35K. Whatever the percentage is 15-25-35, whatever. That way anyone who is low income wouldn't pay anything, pretty much the way it is now. But instead of a progressive tax, which in essence punishes success, you have a flat tax on income. What do you think?
I think it is pretty clear from the numbers posted by MikePA that the outcome will be MORE revenue to the govt.
So, "poor people pay no tax, the rich pay a "FAIR" share, because after all, how much more fair can a percentage of income be?

My, you guys got out of the sarcastic side of bed this morning.

There are attractive things about flat taxes, least of which would be eliminating the day and a half I spend trying to figure out which form to report my nickels on

I think the most reasonable measure of GDP to revenue ratio trending would be per capita based. Just to continue the sarcasm - we would have to include unions and corporations since they are people too, as we were recently informed In fact, I just read that ExxonMobil is running for President :laughing:
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

My, you guys got out of the sarcastic side of bed this morning.

There are attractive things about flat taxes, least of which would be eliminating the day and a half I spend trying to figure out which form to report my nickels on

I think the most reasonable measure of GDP to revenue ratio trending would be per capita based. Just to continue the sarcasm - we would have to include unions and corporations since they are people too, as we were recently informed In fact, I just read that ExxonMobil is running for President :laughing:
Dave.

Not Sarcasm, If you remember(and I now know you old enough to)Steve Forbes pretty much proposed the same thing, and if you;ll remember, they guffawed it, why, because, He was "goofy looking". Well I can't argue with logic like that>