Unfortunately, there are likely as many, if not more, people working for the IRS and all related tax businesses than there are working for the automobile industry. So, unless you want all of those folks unemployed, the current tax system is likely to remain.
While some jobs would no longer be necessary, not all jobs would be lost. Someone still has to collect the taxes, process the taxes, go after businesses that don't keep up with their taxes, and so on.
Exactly, there would most likely be some jobs lost. But honestly I think that a lot of them would have to be re-located to states to ensure that taxes were being collected properly and ensuring that the revenue is forwarded to federal level. It would be more of a re-organization.
Part of the goal of tax simplification should be to get rid of the huge bureaucracy that is the IRS. Since a lot of this data is collected electronically, you would only need some computer people and some field agents to keep things in order. But that just covers the IRS. You still have all the tax preparers and tax lawyers and the Liberty Income Tax folks that stand out on the curb dressed as the Statue of Liberty. Those folks are now out of work. This country has gotten itself into a real pickle and there won't be any easy solutions to getting out of it. And if the government doesn't control their spending, it doesn't really matter how taxes are collected.
I don't know about everyone else, but I don't care to continue on as the IRS is just so some people can keep that particular job. There will be other jobs. More than there are now for sure.
Hmm the fair tax could work. We'd still have to keep the estate tax IMO so we don't continue to evolve into a plutocracy. Interesting.
And this is exactly why I oppose new government programs. They will try to tell you they are just temporary (Social Security was supposed to be temporary and limited in scope back when FDR first proposed it), but there is no such thing as "temporary" with government bureaucracy. Once a program is started, it is next to impossible (or sometimes just plain impossible) to ever end it.
What do you have personally against being able to leave something for your children? Not trying to attack you personally I just don't understand anybody supporting the govt taxing estates. It is the same example I gave you earlier, how do you feel about saving your entire life to be able to leave your children $100,000 only to have the govt take $77,000 of it as taxes so your kids now get $23,000 of your hard earned (and already taxed) money.
"so we don't continue to evolve into a plutocracy" There should be a minimum cutoff point. # For amounts over $80,000 but not over $100,000, the tentative tax is $18,200 plus 28% of the excess over $80,000. # For amounts over $100,000 but not over $150,000, the tentative tax is $23,800 plus 30% of the excess over $100,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States It's not nearly as draconian as you imagine. And it's the only way we have of keeping a leash on the wealthy some of whom, not all, would use that money to lobby to change the system to benefit themselves over everyone else. It's happened many times in our countries past. If you're that worried about it why not start giving it to them now.
Why are you so down on the people that make a lot of money? This is not apersonal attack at all.. just an observation. If you do ot mind explaining why you feel they are so evil? We agree on a lot of points, but I missed this one. ( I had to stop arguing in the snipe thread so I have to do something) Fuzzy
My issue with it is the fact that the govt should have no part of an estate, this is one of the ways famlies get ahead, many famlies sacrifice for great portions of their lives to be able to pass along something to thier children. The problem with govt established limits is that they are adjustable, sure they start at a point that you are comfortable with so you support it. Later they decide they need more money to support their out of control spending so they lower the limit, and raise the percentages. Also the assets have already been taxed, tax was paid on property owned, autos, investments, businesses, etc. Now the govt wants to take another chunk of it just because the person has passed away, it is double dipping.
Look what they did to our economy. We are all hurting right now because of greed engineered by those at the top. Do you really believe no one knew what they were doing to cause this crisis? Look at Bernie Madoff, John Thain, Kenneth Lay, Jeffery Skilling, Tim Blixseth, etc, etc. etc.. They live in communities gated from the public. Even own their own gated ski hills that were recently public. Take advantage of nations other than ours to get even more. Tell me that I need to leave my home waters now "because I paid a lot of money to fish here". Constantly attack Montana's stream access law which says the public can fish below the high water mark, sometimes in view of their opulent mansions built in the floodplains by bribing public officials. My resentment runs very deep indeed. Does anyone need a 400 foot yacht or 7 houses? Does anyone need the equivalent of the GDP of several African nations? They buy justice and are only extremely rarely held responsible. We've been in a class war since 1981 and guess what the only winners are the super wealthy. Wages have stagnated or lost ground for the majority while they have soared to the moon for very few. They cheat the rest of us to get what they don't need. Some people do good things with money, most do not. They leave massive endowments for Ivy League schools and call it charitable giving while children starve. "Of the $250 billion in donations made by individuals to nonprofit organizations in 2005, less than one-third was focused on the needs of the poor." "Households with income less than $200,000 focused more than a third of their giving on the poor, while those with income over $200,000 directed less than 30% of their donations to help the poor.". http://www.unitedwayla.org/getinformed/rr/newsletter/Pages/PatternsofHouseholdCharitableGiving.aspx
Wow, Chris, just wow........ They donated, though. Cancer research, and such are not to help the poor. So, those donations don't count for anything? I don't donate to the poor at all. Most poor that I've seen ain't so poor. If someone's working to try and make it, and failing, that's one thing, but how does being poor in general earn anyone anything? And the same for being rich, whatever your definition of rich is. Poor people take advantage of the system, just as well as the rich do. Just not all of them. People are individuals regardless of their financial status.
I agree JoAnna and I never said that people don't have a right to be comfortable and not want. So is there ever too much? I give to the poor even though I do consider myself in that group.
Too much? Not if we're talking about money, gotten honestly. There is too much evilness and dishonesty, yes, but they aren't exclusive of bank account balances.
Most poor people I know are that way because they are too lazy to do anything. That is just the sad truth. I agree here. If someone gets there money honest then so be it. No they should not be able to buy influence of anything of that nature. That is very wrong. But to say that they caused the problems we have,,.. I think that is a bit far reaching. We have allowed this to happen. No one can get by that. We have allowed the country to become what it is. And yes I do think that part of the problem is that most people have forgotten the old ways. Fuzzy
