How would you reform the tax code?

[bytor2112]

Simple--I like the services provided by taxing income.

Government and service....now their is an oxymoron. But seriously, what services??

[MarginOfError]

Government and service....now their is an oxymoron. But seriously, what services??

I like having social security as a supplemental retirement income (note: when I say supplemental, I mean supplemental). I like that our elderly poverty rate is down to around 10%, and would like it to be lower.

I like having welfare programs. I would prefer for there to be no need for them, but to eliminate them entirely would be catastrophic for everyone as all of the problems associated with destitute poverty would sky rocket across the country. Getting rid of welfare would be fine if we could first fix education and training opportunities for those that aren't getting them.

I like having an Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And I like having an FDA. Do these administrations need a little more common sense and are they in need of some reform? Of course. Ironically, they need more autonomy from the government, but I still want them funded.

As annoying as I find the EPA, I'm glad they exist. I wish they used a little more common sense, but I'd rather have a stringent EPA than no EPA at all. Along those lines, I like having state and national parks.

I like having a space program, and I want to fund the effort to go to Mars. I like having a military and want it to continue to be the most advanced in the world. These programs not only provide security, but they also are the biggest sources of research and innovation in the world. Our quality of life is better because of these kinds of programs.

Honestly, I would have no problem if my taxes weren't lower. I could probably afford to pay a little more. I just think it's time we had a tax code that doesn't require a PhD in Sporadic Thought to understand.

[a-train]

I like having social security as a supplemental retirement income (note: when I say supplemental, I mean supplemental). I like that our elderly poverty rate is down to around 10%, and would like it to be lower.

Great. So YOU buy it and enjoy it. Why should millions who don't want to buy it be forced to do so?

I like having welfare programs. I would prefer for there to be no need for them, but to eliminate them entirely would be catastrophic for everyone as all of the problems associated with destitute poverty would sky rocket across the country. Getting rid of welfare would be fine if we could first fix education and training opportunities for those that aren't getting them.

We can have all the welfare programs we want, just not the kind that involve robbery. Poverty would not skyrocket if the federal welfare system was abolished, it would actually GO DOWN. Destroying wealth does not create wealth. Its really simple. Forcibly taking wealth from productive entities in the economy and diverting it to wealth destruction does no one any favors. Why are there so many poor in the U.S.? The Welfare State. If we really want to afford the most amount of people the best standard of living, the best way to do so is freedom.

I like having an Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And I like having an FDA. Do these administrations need a little more common sense and are they in need of some reform? Of course. Ironically, they need more autonomy from the government, but I still want them funded.

As annoying as I find the EPA, I'm glad they exist. I wish they used a little more common sense, but I'd rather have a stringent EPA than no EPA at all. Along those lines, I like having state and national parks.

I like having a space program, and I want to fund the effort to go to Mars. I like having a military and want it to continue to be the most advanced in the world. These programs not only provide security, but they also are the biggest sources of research and innovation in the world. Our quality of life is better because of these kinds of programs.

Honestly, I would have no problem if my taxes weren't lower. I could probably afford to pay a little more. I just think it's time we had a tax code that doesn't require a PhD in Sporadic Thought to understand.

So just because YOU like certain things, you think you should be allowed to force everyone else to pay for them?

-a-train

[MarginOfError]

Great. So YOU buy it and enjoy it. Why should millions who don't want to buy it be forced to do so?

We can have all the welfare programs we want, just not the kind that involve robbery. Poverty would not skyrocket if the federal welfare system was abolished, it would actually GO DOWN. Destroying wealth does not create wealth. Its really simple. Forcibly taking wealth from productive entities in the economy and diverting it to wealth destruction does no one any favors. Why are there so many poor in the U.S.? The Welfare State. If we really want to afford the most amount of people the best standard of living, the best way to do so is freedom.

So just because YOU like certain things, you think you should be allowed to force everyone else to pay for them?

-a-train

Quite simply, all of these things exist because the nation went through some kind of process to create a way for them to exist. Social Security didn't always exist, but the country found a need for it and went through a process to create it. The same thing with welfare and most of the other things that I have mentioned. That fact would seem to turn your question around on its head...so just because you dislike certain programs, you think you should be allowed to force everyone else to discontinue them?

You seem to be among a relatively few people who fail to recognize that a lot of these programs offer something of benefit to a wide variety of people while costing them a minimum. And in some cases the benefit to society is immeasurable.

Consider public education...let's stop funding it. People who want an education can pay for it on their own. At the same time, let's abolish all of the taxes you would like to have abolished. In my case, you've increased my income by somewhere from $5,000 - $7,000 per year. On that money, I might be able to afford to send two of my kids to school...maybe. But I would only do so if it were really important to me (which it is). But what about the thousands of people in my area who couldn't afford to send a kid to school, and many of whom would prefer to have the money rather than sending their kid(s) to school. (Not only that, but now you're really ticked Fiannan off because people are now limiting the size of their families based on how many kids they can afford to educate). History and experience have shown us that low education is correlated with, among other things, poverty. And poverty is the biggest indicator we know of for crime. Well, so much for sending my second kid to school because now I have to pay for all the security features I can get to protect all that stuff that I've accumulated. So tell me, a-train, which of my kids gets to go to school?

What you're proposing wouldn't be a free state. It would gradually disintegrate from a welfare state to a feudal state.

Oh, I'm sorry, was that absurd hyperbole? Maybe next time you could listen to the parts said about needing to reform and improve government programs. The point is this: there are better solutions than the complete discontinuation of these programs. And I believe that you have a look around you'll find that the vast majority of Americans agree.

Edited April 20, 2009 by MarginOfError

[rameumptom]

Government is extremely inefficient. If we were to give $25,000/year to every family on welfare, and have that be their welfare benefit, we would save between $300 and $400 billion a year in overhead. And each family would receive a bigger benefit than most now receive.

Welfare and other issues must be done on the state, not federal level. State and local government have better ability to respond to the local needs, and to be more efficient. Only during times of national economic emergency, should the feds step in.

So, if a state wishes to have a huge welfare system, that's fine by me. That allows other states to flexibily deal with their needs as they see fit.

[bytor2112]

You seem to be among a relatively few people who fail to recognize that a lot of these programs offer something of benefit to a wide variety of people while costing them a minimum. And in some cases the benefit to society is immeasurable.

Social security is broken, this is a point that is generally agreed upon by both parties. My problem with social security is that #1, we are forced to pay into it, yet have very little control over the distribution rate. #2. The return on this forced "tax" for retirement is almost nothing. Why not allow "younger" people different options with their retirement savings? Either by opting out of the program all together or allowing the contributions to be invested. #3 Loss of assets at death. What a big scam, and it really amounts to nothing more than a gigantic death tax.

Everything is so politicized. We could do so much better for our future retirees if we would address the issue NOW. Too bad, politicians would rather have it as an issue or a scare tactic to keep seniors voting a certain way.

[talisyn]

Social security is broken, this is a point that is generally agreed upon by both parties. My problem with social security is that #1, we are forced to pay into it, yet have very little control over the distribution rate. #2. The return on this forced "tax" for retirement is almost nothing. Why not allow "younger" people different options with their retirement savings? Either by opting out of the program all together or allowing the contributions to be invested. #3 Loss of assets at death. What a big scam, and it really amounts to nothing more than a gigantic death tax.

Everything is so politicized. We could do so much better for our future retirees if we would address the issue NOW. Too bad, politicians would rather have it as an issue or a scare tactic to keep seniors voting a certain way.

Yeah, the last few years have shown how investing your social security contributions into 'investments' is full of win. I'll invest in my 401k, but I would like something that is not gonna poof away because some idiot wanted to see how fast he could make the DOW fall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of the welfare state....it sucks. It really does. It makes the downtrodden full of shame and the taxpayers taliban/gestapo/nosy biddies. My family relied on the kindness of gov't agencies for a bit, and I can attest that nothing will change the attitudes of your fellow shoppers faster than when they see that little plastic card. Your 10 pounds of beans, 25 pounds of rice, 2 gallons of milk and 1 dozen eggs will shrink to insignificance when compared to that teeny tiny little bottle of chocolate milk or anything else deemed frivolous and unnecessary by people who don't know you, don't know about your little brother out in the car who had to have shots and is really crying, and just don't care because you're spending their money.

It's not their money. It's not your money. It's an investment by the government in a family that in my case has produced 8 taxpayers, 3 of whom have served this country honorably in Iraq. The few thousand dollars that were used for food stamps and cash assistance have been repaid many many times over, sometimes with blood. Can we reform the tax code so that it maybe reflects the fact that capitalism is not set up for everyone to succeed? In fact, if everyone did succeed capitalism would be a dismal failure. Talk about a redistribution of wealth

[bytor2112]

Yeah, the last few years have shown how investing your social security contributions into 'investments' is full of win. I'll invest in my 401k, but I would like something that is not gonna poof away because some idiot wanted to see how fast he could make the DOW fall.

The DOW was over 14,000 in October of 2007. So when you say the last few years you are obviously referring to the last year. True, the downward spiral was painful for many, particularly those who just let it ride and didn't seek advice.

That being said, there are relatively stable investments and strategies that would serve the need for stability with Social Security assets. As far as the idiot that wants to see how fast they can make the DOW fall, I am not sure exactly what you mean. Recessions come and go and so to do Bear markets and frankly this market downturn was not nearly as bad as some on the past. I manage money for a living and while it looks bad now, the market will recover and advance and if you invest and are properly diversified you will be happy. If you are uncertain, seek some advice.

Allowing younger Americans to invest all or a portion of their SS tax in a self directed IRA with some limitations would be so much better than the system we have today. If you or most Americans truly understood the big ripoff SS was it would make you bonkers.

Edited April 20, 2009 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

It's not their money. It's not your money. It's an investment by the government in a family that in my case has produced 8 taxpayers, 3 of whom have served this country honorably in Iraq. The few thousand dollars that were used for food stamps and cash assistance have been repaid many many times over, sometimes with blood. Can we reform the tax code so that it maybe reflects the fact that capitalism is not set up for everyone to succeed? In fact, if everyone did succeed capitalism would be a dismal failure. Talk about a redistribution of wealth

The money that is invested by the government in a family didn't come out of thin air. Somebody else worked to earn that money, the government took it and redistributed it. You may not like how that sounds, but it is the simple truth. I believe in helping those who would help themselves if they could, but can't. Often times people are a products of bad choices in life and end up on the dole and often times people are forced their due to circumstances beyond their control. I am all for lending a helping hand, but we don't need a nanny state. The biggest obstacle to prosperity is our government. Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Get rid of the tax and the economy blooms and people get job and generations prosper as a result.

[talisyn]

The money that is invested by the government in a family didn't come out of thin air. Somebody else worked to earn that money, the government took it and redistributed it. You may not like how that sounds, but it is the simple truth. I believe in helping those who would help themselves if they could, but can't. Often times people are a products of bad choices in life and end up on the dole and often times people are forced their due to circumstances beyond their control. I am all for lending a helping hand, but we don't need a nanny state. The biggest obstacle to prosperity is our government. Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Get rid of the tax and the economy blooms and people get job and generations prosper as a result.

I would love to see the corporate taxes go away, if only to see what would happen. Are there other nations that don't have capital gains taxes et all, so we have some idea of what would happen, or is the USA gonna be the guinea pig?

[bytor2112]

I would love to see the corporate taxes go away, if only to see what would happen. Are there other nations that don't have capital gains taxes et all, so we have some idea of what would happen, or is the USA gonna be the guinea pig?

It varies, some countries have a capital gains tax and some do not. I would praise President Obama if he were to at least suspend the capital gains tax for a couple of years, but as it stands capital gains taxes will be soaring after 2010.

Corporate taxes are the biggie. If we were to cut corporate tax rates to zero, the economy would roar and the unemployment would be very low. The revenue from all the new jobs, hopefully taxed at a flat rate for all would be plenty for the government to use for "useful" services.

[MarginOfError]

I would love to see the corporate taxes go away, if only to see what would happen. Are there other nations that don't have capital gains taxes et all, so we have some idea of what would happen, or is the USA gonna be the guinea pig?

I’ll just offer up these two links and let you look around at them:

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Lagging Behind OECD Corporate Tax Trends

File:Income Taxes By Country.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Countries with low corporate taxes tend to have higher individual taxes. Those with high corporate taxes have lower individual taxes. Likely, if we were to cut the corporate tax, we’d see a lot more business and a lot more jobs come into the states, which is good. But we’d also likely end up paying a higher percentage in individual income tax. Now we just have to ask ourselves if that is something we’re willing to take?

Personally, I think we’d be better of with a more comprehensible tax system that is done entirely through withholdings. You might even be able to reduce the tax rate while increasing revenue this way, while freeing up the IRS to investigate more tax fraud, or monitor internal spending instead of focusing on tax collection so much. Essentially, you could turn the IRS into a government auditor.

As a companion to that, it would be worth it to reduce corporate tax some. I wouldn’t eliminate it, but make it more friendly. If you get more businesses to come, you’ll increase revenues, even with the lower rate. Plus, you create more jobs, which creates more individuals paying taxes, which creates more revenue.

But if you reduce corporate tax, unless you’re willing to pay more individual tax, we’ll have to make sure that some reforms are made and the money is spent more wisely. As with so many things in economics, it’s probably best to do a little bit of everything instead of relying on just one idea.

[talisyn]

Yeah that's the trick, where is the shortfall gonna land if the corporate taxes are cut? Let's say everyone gets a flat 20% tax, no taxes on corporations. Single corporations save millions of dollars in taxes they don't have to pay, compared to the few thousand dollars the wage earner has to pay in taxes. Wage earners cut back on unnecessary spending, saving their money for the very basics like house, car, food, and gas. Are the companies that no longer have customers gonna raise their wages so their employees can buy their stuff? Tax incentives for corporations are great, but individuals need tax incentives too.

I say bring it on. The sooner civilization collapses the sooner I don't have to pay back my student loans

Edited April 20, 2009 by talisyn
yes the last line was a joke

[Guest]

Countries with low corporate taxes tend to have higher individual taxes. Those with high corporate taxes have lower individual taxes. Likely, if we were to cut the corporate tax, we’d see a lot more business and a lot more jobs come into the states, which is good. But we’d also likely end up paying a higher percentage in individual income tax. Now we just have to ask ourselves if that is something we’re willing to take?

But if you reduce corporate tax, unless you’re willing to pay more individual tax, we’ll have to make sure that some reforms are made and the money is spent more wisely. As with so many things in economics, it’s probably best to do a little bit of everything instead of relying on just one idea.

I disagree based on my experience. I grew up in Cebu, Philippines. It is the fastest growing economy in the Philippines for the past 30 years - beating the capital region of Manila. The recent economic downturn did not impact Cebu significantly. You can research this and see for yourself. Cebu is a shining example of how a government can work hand-in-hand with the private sector to create sustainable long-term economic growth.

The government of Cebu created the Mactan Export Processing Zone (MEPZ) in 1986 or so. It is a tract of land that is reserved for the main purpose of attracting businesses to boost export. They learned this method from the Chinese. It was created with the knowledge that if a country's rate of exports are higher than imports, it creates a strong currency. The main draw is the 5% flat tax on gross income (i.e., gross revenues less expenses and sales returns/discounts/allowances and special deductions). In addition, businesses inside MEPZ enjoy tax and duty exemptions for imported capital equipment and raw materials necessary for manufacture. The zone also provides wharf/airport/seaport fees exemptions. It also provides tax holidays and other perks.

MEPZ boasts companies like Fairchild Semiconductor (99% Chinese), Timex (100% American), British Armour (100% Norwegian), Pentax Cameras (100% Japanese), Avalanche Fashion (99% German) among other international and Filipino companies. International companies are drawn into the zone because of the tax haven and duty-free materials transfer. Filipino companies are drawn into the zone because of the "perks" like corporate tax holidays and its convenient location to air and sea transport and a techonologically advanced infrastructure. Note: You have to be INSIDE the zone to enjoy the benefits.

Companies compete to set up business inside MEPZ. This led to a surge in job availability that caused an influx of immigrants from all over the Philippines. This, in turn, increased real estate sales ("true" sales - based on need and not just for "lifestyle upgrade" or "flipping"), shopping and restaurant sales, transportation services, and a general economic boost for all Cebuano businesses outside the Zones. This eventually led to higher tax revenues for the government of Cebu.

They have since expanded MEPZ to create MEPZ 2 - still an export zone, and added Economic Zones not specific to exports - like the call center and information systems zones that was created to compete with call centers and information systems services in India.

Cebu is a thriving hubbub of economic success with individual taxes unchanged (still uses Philippine national standard). The government has been handed down from one governor to the next coming from varying political parties. They are all committed to the success of MEPZ and the Economic Zones.

As of March 15, 500 employees from 6 companies in MEPZ-1 lost their jobs. 391 employees got hired by 33 companies in MEPZ-1 to offset this number. Out of the 105 companies in MEPZ-1, only 1 closed their doors.

To give you an idea of how amazing this is - I live in Jacksonville, Florida for now. My 7-year-old son is in a baseball team. One of his team-mates' dad owns a t-shirt manufacturing company. His company is located in MEPZ-2! He flies back and forth between Jacksonville and Cebu to oversee production. I asked him, "why do you put up with all this travel and the hassle of overseas management when you can base your company in Jacksonville"? He says simply, "I can't afford to put up a company in the United States". His company hires 200 Filipinos.

Edited April 21, 2009 by anatess

[rameumptom]

Countries with low corporate taxes tend to have higher individual taxes. Those with high corporate taxes have lower individual taxes. Likely, if we were to cut the corporate tax, we’d see a lot more business and a lot more jobs come into the states, which is good. But we’d also likely end up paying a higher percentage in individual income tax. Now we just have to ask ourselves if that is something we’re willing to take?

What many do not understand is: any tax on a business is a tax on individuals. If Congress were to double the taxes on all corporations today, guess how they would pay for it? They pass the costs down to the consumer, and it ends up revolving through the community, as one company has to pass on any overhead taxes it directly receives from the feds, and also any indirect taxes it receives from purchasing services/products from other companies. Of course, they will include the additional cost of tax attorneys, CPAs, etc., that are needed to figure out an ever increasing tax load, to find legal loopholes, and to hire lobbyists to get their taxes reduced. If corporate taxes are so high that it significantly increases the cost of their product, they lose money, lay off workers, and you have a loss of businesses, jobs and taxes.

If individuals are directly taxed, and no taxes are taken from corporations, then products are sold at a lower cost, businesses would return from their overseas escape of high taxes, and there would be sufficient jdecent paying obs for everyone around. There is more stimulus going into the economy, rather than being sucked out of it by revolving taxes that hit every sector of the economy time and again.

[rameumptom]

I would love to see the corporate taxes go away, if only to see what would happen. Are there other nations that don't have capital gains taxes et all, so we have some idea of what would happen, or is the USA gonna be the guinea pig?

Hong Kong has very limited corporate taxes, and is still doing well in this economic crisis. The economy there is "only" growing at about 8% this year, compared to double digits in previous years.

India used to have high regulation and taxation of corporations. It could take years to get an okay for your business to be approved by the legislature. Then taxes made it cheaper to start the business elsewhere. I know of one firm that moved to France, because it was easier and cheaper to get started - and France has lots of regulation and taxation too. France's average unemployment is normally 12%.

Anyway, about a decade ago, India began free trade concepts, and has opened up thousands of jobs and employment for its people. Their economy has exploded. Yes, they are struggling through this downturn, but not half as much as they would if they had not first gone through the economic upswing caused by deregulation and lowering corporate taxes.

[a-train]

Quite simply, all of these things exist because the nation went through some kind of process to create a way for them to exist. Social Security didn't always exist, but the country found a need for it and went through a process to create it. The same thing with welfare and most of the other things that I have mentioned. That fact would seem to turn your question around on its head...so just because you dislike certain programs, you think you should be allowed to force everyone else to discontinue them?

Emphatically NO. As I already said, if people want to create and contribute to a welfare program, I celebrate them and will joyfully engage in the welfare program I choose (as I already do). What you must understand is that I don't believe government should force anyone EITHER WAY. How are the poor provided for in a free society? Those who wish to help are NOT prevented from doing so.

You seem to be among a relatively few people who fail to recognize that a lot of these programs offer something of benefit to a wide variety of people while costing them a minimum. And in some cases the benefit to society is immeasurable.

Even if that is all true, is that the basis for justifying government policy? Does it not matter who we have to rob? Perhaps it is all good if the amount we steal is just a small amount (whatever that is)? What about negative externalities in the economy, is that included in "costing them a minimum"? Right now our government has to BORROW billions just to run the welfare state. Is it really that affordable if we have to plunge into debt and ruin our currency to pay for it? Compare that with the voluntary LDS welfare system.

What is better for a man, raising him to self-sufficiency or putting him on perpetual welfare? Should I not be allowed to donate to a program with an emphasis on self-sufficiency rather than a perpetual welfare state?

Further, it is demonstrable that state compulsary welfarism HARMS the so-called benefactors more than it helps. Just look at the basic history of the Welfare State. Has the number of people on welfare decreased or increased under state welfarism? Do the children raised on welfare typically become wealthy business owners, or do they typically live their entire life on welfare and teach their children the same? Again, compare that with the voluntary LDS welfare system.

These comparisons have been made by the First Presidency in General Conference. See the following example:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance

Consider public education...let's stop funding it. People who want an education can pay for it on their own. At the same time, let's abolish all of the taxes you would like to have abolished. In my case, you've increased my income by somewhere from $5,000 - $7,000 per year. On that money, I might be able to afford to send two of my kids to school...maybe. But I would only do so if it were really important to me (which it is). But what about the thousands of people in my area who couldn't afford to send a kid to school, and many of whom would prefer to have the money rather than sending their kid(s) to school. (Not only that, but now you're really ticked Fiannan off because people are now limiting the size of their families based on how many kids they can afford to educate). History and experience have shown us that low education is correlated with, among other things, poverty. And poverty is the biggest indicator we know of for crime. Well, so much for sending my second kid to school because now I have to pay for all the security features I can get to protect all that stuff that I've accumulated. So tell me, a-train, which of my kids gets to go to school?

While this is off-topic, suppose every penny of federal funding for public education were suddenly stripped. Imagine thousands of schools closing. What would districts do? Would that be the end of education in America? Of course not. Education existed long before federal funding. Schools would actually compete to get students (and their parents' money). School costs would drop dramatically. You would not have to choose which child to send, but which school to send each of them.

What you're proposing wouldn't be a free state. It would gradually disintegrate from a welfare state to a feudal state.

Is that how fuedalism was ended, the welfare state? While I understand your fears, they are nevertheless without reason. Fuedalism was not upheld through the lack of welfarism. Government upheld feudalism. In such a society, an individual is not valued on their own merit in a free marketplace, but rather their birthright (or lack thereof) is upheld by law without regard to their individual ability or lack of.

Feudalism was ended by allowing freedom. The economists and governors who put it away advocated freedom and free markets. The serfs who rose from slavery to wealth and freedom didn't do so through a welfare state.

A free society is what I am advocating. Feudalism is not a freedom and neither is welfare statism.

Oh, I'm sorry, was that absurd hyperbole? Maybe next time you could listen to the parts said about needing to reform and improve government programs. The point is this: there are better solutions than the complete discontinuation of these programs. And I believe that you have a look around you'll find that the vast majority of Americans agree.

And so just because the "vast majority" "agrees" the minorities should be robbed?

-a-train

[a-train]

Can we reform the tax code so that it maybe reflects the fact that capitalism is not set up for everyone to succeed? In fact, if everyone did succeed capitalism would be a dismal failure. Talk about a redistribution of wealth

Perhaps you have a different definition of capitalism than I have. Or perhaps your definition of success is different. If anyone is forced economically (deprived of their property) by government in a given system, that system is not fully a capitalist system. If government forcibly takes from any individual his means, or the control of his means, it is not a capitalist system.

Capitalism is not a system whereby a limited amount of wealth is produced and transfered to a selected group from a selected group by government.

Under capitalism, each individual is protected in his right to property and his right to produce. Thus, the level of production is not controlled by government. Further, the distribution of produced goods is done solely on the basis of mutual consent. Thus, government does not control distribution either. That is the success of capitalism, nothing more and nothing less.

-a-train

[WhatMeWorry]

The Fair Tax

[MarginOfError]

Emphatically NO. As I already said, if people want to create and contribute to a welfare program, I celebrate them and will joyfully engage in the welfare program I choose (as I already do). What you must understand is that I don't believe government should force anyone EITHER WAY. How are the poor provided for in a free society? Those who wish to help are NOT prevented from doing so.

Even if that is all true, is that the basis for justifying government policy? Does it not matter who we have to rob? Perhaps it is all good if the amount we steal is just a small amount (whatever that is)? What about negative externalities in the economy, is that included in "costing them a minimum"? Right now our government has to BORROW billions just to run the welfare state. Is it really that affordable if we have to plunge into debt and ruin our currency to pay for it? Compare that with the voluntary LDS welfare system.

What is better for a man, raising him to self-sufficiency or putting him on perpetual welfare? Should I not be allowed to donate to a program with an emphasis on self-sufficiency rather than a perpetual welfare state?

Further, it is demonstrable that state compulsary welfarism HARMS the so-called benefactors more than it helps. Just look at the basic history of the Welfare State. Has the number of people on welfare decreased or increased under state welfarism? Do the children raised on welfare typically become wealthy business owners, or do they typically live their entire life on welfare and teach their children the same? Again, compare that with the voluntary LDS welfare system.

These comparisons have been made by the First Presidency in General Conference. See the following example:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance

While this is off-topic, suppose every penny of federal funding for public education were suddenly stripped. Imagine thousands of schools closing. What would districts do? Would that be the end of education in America? Of course not. Education existed long before federal funding. Schools would actually compete to get students (and their parents' money). School costs would drop dramatically. You would not have to choose which child to send, but which school to send each of them.

Is that how fuedalism was ended, the welfare state? While I understand your fears, they are nevertheless without reason. Fuedalism was not upheld through the lack of welfarism. Government upheld feudalism. In such a society, an individual is not valued on their own merit in a free marketplace, but rather their birthright (or lack thereof) is upheld by law without regard to their individual ability or lack of.

Feudalism was ended by allowing freedom. The economists and governors who put it away advocated freedom and free markets. The serfs who rose from slavery to wealth and freedom didn't do so through a welfare state.

A free society is what I am advocating. Feudalism is not a freedom and neither is welfare statism.

And so just because the "vast majority" "agrees" the minorities should be robbed?

-a-train

This is where you fail to be an intelligent debater. You focus entirely on the "I don't think we should stop taxing" and fail to listen to, "we need to improve and reform some of these programs." Of course we need to spend less money on welfare and spend it more effectively. Of course we need to retool welfare so that it encourages self-reliance. But you don't have to stop funding that to make it happen.

I am all for a free society that is neither welfarism nor feudalism...that exists somewhere between where we are now and what you propose. What I, and many people are proposing, is that rather than swing the pendulum from one extreme to the other, we stop the pendulum from swinging altogether and put it in try to put it in that place of perfect equilibrium. I highly recommend you take some time to listen to what people say instead of ranting about things you want to hear them say.

[MarginOfError]

What many do not understand is: any tax on a business is a tax on individuals. If Congress were to double the taxes on all corporations today, guess how they would pay for it? They pass the costs down to the consumer, and it ends up revolving through the community, as one company has to pass on any overhead taxes it directly receives from the feds, and also any indirect taxes it receives from purchasing services/products from other companies. Of course, they will include the additional cost of tax attorneys, CPAs, etc., that are needed to figure out an ever increasing tax load, to find legal loopholes, and to hire lobbyists to get their taxes reduced. If corporate taxes are so high that it significantly increases the cost of their product, they lose money, lay off workers, and you have a loss of businesses, jobs and taxes.

If individuals are directly taxed, and no taxes are taken from corporations, then products are sold at a lower cost, businesses would return from their overseas escape of high taxes, and there would be sufficient jdecent paying obs for everyone around. There is more stimulus going into the economy, rather than being sucked out of it by revolving taxes that hit every sector of the economy time and again.

I have no problem with reducing corporate taxes. I just don't think cutting corporate tax to zero is going to be as great for everyone as you and others seem to think. I'm sure the optimum combination lies somewhere in the middle.

[a-train]

This is where you fail to be an intelligent debater. You focus entirely on the "I don't think we should stop taxing" and fail to listen to, "we need to improve and reform some of these programs." Of course we need to spend less money on welfare and spend it more effectively. Of course we need to retool welfare so that it encourages self-reliance. But you don't have to stop funding that to make it happen.

I am all for a free society that is neither welfarism nor feudalism...that exists somewhere between where we are now and what you propose. What I, and many people are proposing, is that rather than swing the pendulum from one extreme to the other, we stop the pendulum from swinging altogether and put it in try to put it in that place of perfect equilibrium. I highly recommend you take some time to listen to what people say instead of ranting about things you want to hear them say.

Are you saying that you would advocate a reform of the state welfare system that would make all contributions to it go in on a strictly voluntary basis?

-a-train

[rameumptom]

I have no problem with reducing corporate taxes. I just don't think cutting corporate tax to zero is going to be as great for everyone as you and others seem to think. I'm sure the optimum combination lies somewhere in the middle.

MoE, you still are missing a few points. First, you are sharing your opinion, which is fine. But it is not based on any facts or evidence. Fact is: when you reduce corporate taxes, you increase overall tax revenue, because there are more jobs and more people are paying personal taxes. Fact is: corporate taxes are really taxes imposed upon individuals, as all taxes are passed down to the consumer. Fact is: corporate taxes increase the costs of products, making them more expensive to sell, and less competitive with other countries who do not tax their corporations. Higher corporate tax means less competitive, means fewer jobs for individuals.

Next, everytime corporate and individual taxes have been reduced, overall tax revenues have increased. This happened with Kennedy, Reagan, and GWBush over the last 40 years.

Why double tax individuals and make companies less competitive by taxing them at all? Just tax the individual directly either through a flat tax, or a fair tax (consumption tax).