Jump to content

Supposn

Member
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Green

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Cliffside Park, NJ
  1. Only Trump & Sanders acknowledge USA’s chronic trade deficits extents of harm; no candidates propose explicit answers. Refer to the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nations economies” within Wikipedia’s article entitled “Trade balances” and/or the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. Respectfully, Supposn
  2. Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP, jobs and median wage. It is not our global trade but our chronic annual trade deficits that are a significant drag upon our economy. Annual Trade deficits’ are ALWAYS a net drag upon their nation’s economy. They drag upon their nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs and purchasing power of their median wage. I’m a proponent of a proposal to reduce USA’s trade deficit of goods as described within the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates”. The proposal for transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) is unilateral and its entire net costs are entirely funded by USA purchasers of foreign goods. If we consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the proposed policy would be of some benefit to every USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods anywhere in he world. It would increase prices to USA purchasers of imported goods and is an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. Due to the proposed policy price increases of imports to USA purchasers and reductions of USA export goods’ prices to foreign purchasers would be substantially much more market rather than government determined. Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates” And To the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP” within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”. Respectfully Supposn
  3. Politically partisan electronic messaging; (i.e. political advertisments): Advertisements are meant to motivate people; political advertisements are meant to motivate potential voters. If a message is or is not a partisan political comment can and often is a subjective determination. Government is political; it’s unreasonable to expect a government objectively detect and report upon messages’ politically partisan character. Governments performing such tasks are acting contrary to the concepts of liberty and free speech. There are also questions regarding commercial advertisements that may or may not be entwined with politics? Is an advertisement commenting upon the enterprise’s and/or a government’s policies and behavior meant to generally promote the enterprise and/or is it an educational service and/or is it meant to advance or hinder adoption and/or diligent enforcement of government policies entwined with the advertising sponsor’s commercial and/or political interests? All of these questions should be beyond the jurisdiction of governments professing the policies of liberty and free speech policies. On the other hand: Wealthy individuals, great organizations and enterprises contribute vast amounts of money as they compete for access to the ears of our elected public officials, that require those funds to compete for votes, which enables them to purchase electronic advertisements, to motivate voters, that’s required to enable their election or re-election, in order to receive vast amounts of money for their next election campaign. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Let’s digress and discuss the method by which our nation eliminated IBM’s vast competitive advantage over the computer software and services industry. IBM was selling their computer hardware with the prices of their software and other services baked into the purchase prices. IBM was in fact the vast majority of the computer hardware industry and only those who use computer hardware have any need for computer software or services. The Federal laws promoting ACTUAL open competition in market places was employed to obtain a more liberal sales practice policy from IBM. IBM agreed to “unbundle” their equipment sales and rental prices to be “unbundled” from the prices of all other IBM software and other computer services. Computer industry competition, innovation and variety of available products almost immediately began to appear. This was later followed by price reductions that were to an extent induced by the increased competition. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// . Similarly a method has been conceived that would enable us to completely respect free speech and reduce what is now in effect our government's subsidy of partisan political electronic messaging; (i.e. political advertisments). (A) If the federal government chose to have revenue from electronic advertising time sales “unbundled” from all other sales items such as (but not limited to items regarding the messages’ contents), we could disallow any reduction of taxable income for the purchase of electronic advertisement time (for ALL purposes) and for spending that increases the net incomes of any entities that spend to enable electronic messaging. ( Separate tax deductable contributions could continue to be made to non-profit organizations that would provide content to their subsidiary organization that enables or purchases electronic message time. Contributions to such subsidiary organizations would not be tax-deductable. ////////////////////////////////////// By far the most expensive item of any national or state wide political campaign is the purchase of electronic advertising time because although it's of great amounts of expense, it's of much lesser cost per numbers of voters accessed. The advantageous leverage of wealth is among the greatest threats to the concepts free speech and entitlement of citizens’ equal opportunities individually and/or in groups to petition their government officials and their petitions be granted equal considerations. Respectfully, Supposn
  4. Fallopian, general sales taxes are (rarely if ever anything other than) flat rated taxes. Refer to the thread entitled A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax, http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174037-a-flat-general-sales-tax-is-less-regressive-than-a-flat-income-tax/ . Respectfully, Supposn
  5. Knee Jerk, The federal income taxes are our primary sources of tax revenue. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th amendment before federal income taxes are entirely eliminated. It‘s imprudent and impractical to replace our entire income tax systems in a single step. I strongly doubt that the U.S. Congress would or should ever pass an act that would accomplish the entire replacement within a single enacting step. I believe we will go to Mars but we will not attempt enacting anything similar to the Fair-tax proposal within a single year’s duration. Each incremental step for the enactment of the Fair tax should simultaneously: (1) Reduce individual and corporate regular income tax rates upon all income brackets by a uniform portion of net taxable incomes (rather than reductions of taxes themselves). (2) Increase the federal general sales tax rate. (3) Increase federal laws and regulations to compensate low income purchasers for the increased sales taxes. I don’t know if any new or modified federal laws or regulations that could reasonably compensate the unemployed or working poor, (i.e. populist legislation) could be to your satisfaction. The dream of eliminating the IRS can only become reality if the IRS would be replaced with other bureaucracy to administer and enforce federal tax laws and regulations. Regardless of names or titles, some people will have to perform IRS's tasks for us. Respectfully, Supposn
  6. DonJoe, for various reason there is great dissatisfaction with our major sources of federal tax revenues, (i.e. our federal individual and corporate income taxes). Among those dissatisfied, there are many who contend that our federal income taxes would be greatly improved if we simplify our tax regulations and had a single tax rate upon taxable income. I contend that our income taxes are not progressive to the extent implied by our progressive rates upon taxable incomes. The consequences of simplifying our tax regulations and a single uniform tax rate upon all taxable income would reduce the proportion of tax revenues paid by higher earners, which increases the proportions from lesser earners; additionally if such regulations were enacted to be revenue neutral, the amounts paid by lesser earners would be significantly greater. Refer to this thread’s 11:48 PM, March 30, 2015 post. Taxes, the median wage’s purchasing power, rates of unemployment are all inter-related factors within our economy; but if we are to successfully deal with them, they should be treated as separate topics. Respectfully, Supposn
  7. A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues. General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes. “Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes. What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys. The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes. Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation. The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this is our income tax regulations are less progressive than implied by our progressive tax rates; (thus our taxes are more regressive than otherwise). I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax; I do not believe we can or we should replace our federal income taxes with a general sales tax; I do advocate we incrementally replace income taxes with sales taxes. Excerpted from the thread http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174111-can-the-fair-tax-ever-be-passed-and-enacted/ : I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued. If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes. If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated. Respectfully, Supposn
  8. Old Mack, I’m not “shunning” you but your posts to this thread do not address the topic of general sales taxes advantages or disadvantages when compared to other methods of acquiring tax revenues. Respectfully, Supposn
  9. LibtardSaidWhat, I’m a proponent of the Fair tax but I do not believe it’s politically or economically practical to replace our entire federal taxes on net incomes with a general sales tax. It would be financially imprudent and politically less feasible and may be impossible to pass a bill transferring our entire federal taxes upon net incomes to a sales tax in a single step. I expect that after one of the incremental enacting steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued. If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes. If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated. I also believe as long as there’s any federal taxes upon net incomes, both individuals and corporate enterprises should be taxed. Otherwise entrepreneurs would demonstrate little personal incomes; their incomes would be labeled and tax sheltered as their corporations’ earnings. Respectfully, Supposn
  10. William1444, it shouldn’t surprise anyone who reads any of my posts that I have preferences regarding persons and political parties; but the underlying concepts, causes and consequences of what has, does or will occur have always been of my greater concerns. Your post touched on subjects that are of my particular interests and concerns; your post touches on our nation’s economy, numbers of jobs, and global trade policy. You find fault with corporations that are required to function within the legal and commercial environment that’s determined by our governments’ legislators and the preferences of those corporations’ customers. You find Fault with the Republican Party that must satisfy their political funding contributors without which they cannot communicate with the voters and they must also satisfy those that take the trouble to vote and they must also hope that education of those voters facilitate their choosing the more capable legislators. I am a populist; I find much fault with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is not particularly worthy of my vote. With regard to our global trade policy, google the Wikipedia article entitled “Import Certificates” and the paragraphs entitled “Trade balances’ affects upon their nation’s GDP” excerpted from the “Balance of trade “article or refer to the thread “ http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/165389-reduce-the-trade-deficit;-increase-gdp-median-wage/ ”. Respectfully, Supposn
  11. Skews13, currently USA’s major our progressively rated federal taxes upon net incomes. Some advocate our major tax revenue sources should be transformed to a basis of net incomes to a basis of sales taxes and some provisions should be made to compensate lower income purchasers for their increased federal taxes due to the transformation of tax basis; (i.e. some advocate the “Fair” tax). Sales taxes are usually flat rated taxes. Flat tax rates themselves are neither regressive or progressive and a general sales tax is applied equally to all but general sales taxes are (comparatively to progressive taxes upon net incomes), more regressive than a progressive tax rates applied to net incomes. But due to the political and accounting complexity, the calculation of commercial expenditures that reduce taxpayers’ taxable incomes are drastically overstated and such reductions from gross incomes are seldom applicable to wage and salary incomes. The losses of tax revenues due to legal and fraudulent practices are of greater amounts among higher income individuals and enterprises are grater (than lesser earners) and their aggregate proportion of our total tax revenue losses are greater. Our federal progressive tax rates upon net incomes are effectively much less progressive as we are being led to believe. If we could successfully simplifying our income tax regulations could somewhat mitigate but certainly not approach eliminating the understating of net incomes and the consequential losses of income tax revenues. Unlike the calculation of net incomes, the tasks of calculation and enforcement for general sales taxes are much simpler and less expensive to perform. General s purchases rather than calculations for income tax forms better reflect the ACTUAL net incomes of individual taxpayers. Thus a flat tax upon net incomes would be more regressive than a flat tax upon general sales. This statement in itself is a logical conclusion but does not itself advocate anything. Within the thread “ http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174111-can-the-fair-tax-ever-be-passed-and-enacted/ “ I do state and explain a federal tax proposal. Respectfully, Supposn
  12. Can the Fair tax ever be passed and enacted? I’m a proponent of the Fair tax but I do not believe it’s politically or economically practical to replace our entire taxes on net incomes with a sales tax. It would be financially imprudent and politically less feasible and may be impossible to pass a bill transferring our entire federal taxes upon net incomes to a sales tax in a single step. I’m continuously told that Fair tax proponents would not support a fair tax bill to be passed and enacted as other than to be accomplished in a single step; the consequences of retaining such a position is the Fair tax bill will never be attempted on a federal level. Each incremental step for the enactment of the Fair tax should simultaneously: (1) Reduce individual and corporate regular income tax rates upon all income brackets by a uniform portion of net taxable incomes (rather than reductions of taxes themselves). (2) Increase the federal general sales tax rate. (3) Increase the provisions to compensate low income purchasers for the increased sales taxes. I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued. If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes. If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated. Respectfully, Supposn
  13. A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues. General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes. “Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes. What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys. The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes. Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation. The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this all is our more regressive income tax systems. The regressive character of our current income tax systems are inadequately reduced by our current progressive income tax rates. Additionally they believe that our government’s social programs are also inadequate and they’ are of net social and economic benefit to our nation. I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax. Respectfully, Supposn
×
×
  • Create New...