The rich will receive their tax cuts.

1. They made loans to people who prayed for a new home even though they couldn't afford it.

They should never have given a loan to someone who cannot afford it.  In addition, they did not bail out the debtor either.  If a bank is unable to viably operate why should it be allowed to continue?

I agree but once the deed was done there wasn't anything anyone could do about it.  Removing the bank would have only caused more issues.  It would be like removing the whole US government when the president illegally invades a country.  Best solution is to remove the leader and hope the next one sorts out the problems.
As for not bailing out the debtor, that would be more difficult since the "bailout" was a loan and not free money.  You want the government to directly own millions of homes?

This relates to ---->

The long term effects would be felt far and wide.  Also note that the bailouts were not "money for nothing" They were loans where the US government got control of the business itself.  Most if not all of them paid back their TARP money.

Throwing good money out with the bad?

Not sure what you mean.

It means the gov. bailed out banks..... who could not perform.  And we now trust them to work?  I am pointing out specifically the banks as opposed to GM/Chrysler, this is not the first time the US government has had to do this either.
And I would like to point out that none of the bank managers were penalized......

3. Banks (such as those that were failing) give money to small businesses as loans every month.
Go to #1, you do not give money to those who cannot pay. 

Oh but you do.  That's how businesses start you know.  Also, what if your business is seasonal?  You can't exactly keep a lawn care business open in Buffalo during the winter months.  Or shopping stores that buy massive inventory and rely on the profit of those sales to pay for them?  Or car dealerships?  They have to buy the cars they sell and to do that they need bank loans then pay the loans back when they sell the cars.

Yes a business starts buy borrowing capital.  A bank (or lender) has to risk his/her capital on the expectation of a businesses viability.  80% Restaurants fail in their first year.  Anyone opening a restaurant understands that banks are extremely weary of loaning money for the startup.  A smart owner goes after a turn-key business.
The whole thing did not start because of failures of stores and businesses but of banks and extremely corrupt practices.  I will not post all the relevant articles - but you can google them its pretty shady.
 

I used to agree until I did the math and realized that a flat tax rate wouldn't be enough without it being extremely high.
Not only that but just think of all the accountants, tax experts, tax lawyers, and IRS employees that would suddenly be out of a job?  Every single business dedicated to helping people do taxes would sink.  Most would go out of business, resulting in a massive amount of unemployment.

Well I pointed to you where a 15% flat tax would do for Canada - I of course do not know the complete situation in the states - but the highest tax bracket is 127,021.  at 29%.  The lowest tax bracket is 15%, up to 40,970.  As for the the business who are helping people do taxes....  most of these are part time tax-time only cottage industry type jobs.  Businesses would still need tax accountants to deal with their stuff.

I also pointed out Canada did well without income taxes until 1917.

Berny
Flat Tax, Round Earth

But how does flat taxes relate to bailing out the banks? If you don't want that to happen something should be done about the capitalism. And since the bank managers are all in the higher tax scale, a flat tax would only help the causes of the banking crisis more. 

But how does flat taxes relate to bailing out the banks? If you don't want that to happen something should be done about the capitalism. And since the bank managers are all in the higher tax scale, a flat tax would only help the causes of the banking crisis more. 

Well the OP was more about tax breaks to the rich and extension of unemployment benefits (and the like).  The whole bit about Flat taxes and bailouts is somewhat off topicish.  I personally think it was dumb for the US government to so readily bail out the banks - I think a more realistic approach would have been a transfer of accounts and assets from the failed banks to banks that showed a profit, or at least that were not failing.  Of course this is tempered by the fact that I find the US banking institution kinda - wonky.

Berny
Round Tax Flat Earth



As for bank managers who are all in the higher tax scale - as has been pointed out - many people with large incomes can usually keep from paying the taxes that they would normally have to pay.

Quote from: Beorn on December 08, 2010, 03:32:05 PM

But how does flat taxes relate to bailing out the banks? If you don't want that to happen something should be done about the capitalism. And since the bank managers are all in the higher tax scale, a flat tax would only help the causes of the banking crisis more. 

As for bank managers who are all in the higher tax scale - as has been pointed out - many people with large incomes can usually keep from paying the taxes that they would normally have to pay.

I suspect them to be able to do the same with the flat taxes though.

Berny, do you have any data to support your Canadian flat tax theory? Other than the fact that income tax didn't exist pre-1914, I don't see any evidence to support your conclusion. Oh, something other than the complication issue too, you've made that argument quite clearly.

Quote from: Beorn on December 08, 2010, 03:32:05 PM

But how does flat taxes relate to bailing out the banks? If you don't want that to happen something should be done about the capitalism. And since the bank managers are all in the higher tax scale, a flat tax would only help the causes of the banking crisis more. 

Well the OP was more about tax breaks to the rich and extension of unemployment benefits (and the like).  The whole bit about Flat taxes and bailouts is somewhat off topicish.  I personally think it was dumb for the US government to so readily bail out the banks - I think a more realistic approach would have been a transfer of accounts and assets from the failed banks to banks that showed a profit, or at least that were not failing.  Of course this is tempered by the fact that I find the US banking institution kinda - wonky.

Berny
Round Tax Flat Earth



As for bank managers who are all in the higher tax scale - as has been pointed out - many people with large incomes can usually keep from paying the taxes that they would normally have to pay.

That's what the GAAR is for.  If any wealthy individuals decide to push the envelop of creative tax planning, the Canada Revenue Agency can, and has, envoked the General Anti-Avoidance Rule to collect taxes from those individuals.  Usually, the CRA is pretty unreasonable with their assessment when the GAAR is invoked, so tax avoidance tends to not be as big an issue in Canada as in the US.

Berny, do you have any data to support your Canadian flat tax theory? Other than the fact that income tax didn't exist pre-1914, I don't see any evidence to support your conclusion. Oh, something other than the complication issue too, you've made that argument quite clearly.

Berny, do you have any data to support your Canadian flat tax theory? Other than the fact that income tax didn't exist pre-1914, I don't see any evidence to support your conclusion. Oh, something other than the complication issue too, you've made that argument quite clearly.

pre-1917.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Fraser-Institute-Evidence-From-20-Other-Nations-Shows-Canadians-Would-Prosper-if-Government-812624.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=12676

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/display.aspx?id=13039 Has a link to the PDF that has the sample tax return.

Hall and Rabushka estimate that
a federal flat tax in the United States
would increase the total annual output
of goods and services produced by 6%.
If the same held true for Canada, the increase
in total output (GDP) as a result of
the federal 15.0% flat tax would amount
to $2,646 per Canadian per year.

Obviously there is much more including links to some European countries that have adopted the tax to increase their economic performances.

Berny
Flat Tax, Round Ball

I'm going through the arguments now, but I would caution you against relying entirely on the Fraiser Institute. Many of these think-tanks are highly ideologically motivated, and must be checked against other sources.

Here's an example for a more balanced assessment by the Canadian Government in 2001. I'm not suggesting this is the ultimate authority, but the arguments here seem, at least on the surface, to be less ideologically motivated.

A Closer Look at the Flat Tax

The banks loaned to people who couldn't afford the mortgage payments, then they sold the bad loans, now they're buying tax liens on those same fucking homes.. wtf

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2752/

Auctions allow private investors to acquire rights to collect overdue property taxes, levy escalating fees on homeowners, and foreclose on those who do not pay. Some auctions, like this one in Washington, D.C., take place in person. Others occur online, where bidders can buy property tax liens by the thousands.

The Florida securities deal illustrates how financial institutions, including some beneficiaries of federal bailout dollars, are actively creating new ways to profit from the financial distress of homeowners. Acting as surrogate tax collectors, they can help local governments quickly and efficiently bolster their budgets by tens of millions of dollars and in some cases find new owners for dilapidated property. Miami-Dade County, for instance, took in more than $374 million in June 2009 from the sale of about 60,000 property tax liens.

Yet no one is looking out for property owners who suddenly find themselves in debt to the new Wall Street taxman. The growing $5 billion tax lien market goes largely unwatched and unregulated because rules haven?t kept pace with the industry?s flourishing growth in economic hard times, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund has found in a review of the industry.

Once again Bank of America is in the middle of what should be a scandal... guess it won't be a scandal until the government has to step in and bail out Wall Street again. 

Here's an example for a more balanced assessment by the Canadian Government in 2001. I'm not suggesting this is the ultimate authority, but the arguments here seem, at least on the surface, to be less ideologically motivated.

A Closer Look at the Flat Tax

It agrees with some - it disagrees with some.
Obviously I am not a financial expert.  <cough>

It is also produced by our great and wonderfull government - one of which no member I have voted for has ever had a seat.  I mean IT'S the NATURAL LAW party - who wouldn't vote to replace NORAD with Yogic Flyers!

But you have to admit in this country the tax system is quite crumby and needs some sort of overhaul.  I personally do not mind the rich getting richer - just don't screw the poor on the way up.

Berny
Also voted Marxist-Lenin Communist party of Canada, Communist party of Canada, and err never voted for the Bloq though.

So you propose that there should be no incentive to have children, go to school, purchase medications, donate money or any of the other things that tax credits encourage?

Throwing good money out with the bad?

Quote from: Lorddave

Not sure what you mean.

It means the gov. bailed out banks..... who could not perform.  And we now trust them to work?  I am pointing out specifically the banks as opposed to GM/Chrysler, this is not the first time the US government has had to do this either.
And I would like to point out that none of the bank managers were penalized......

I beg to differ.  A LOT of people lost their jobs.  Not only that but the federal oversight that occurred was so bad that the companies fought very hard to get their shares back.
 

3. Banks (such as those that were failing) give money to small businesses as loans every month.
Go to #1, you do not give money to those who cannot pay. 

Quote from: Lorddave

Oh but you do.  That's how businesses start you know.  Also, what if your business is seasonal?  You can't exactly keep a lawn care business open in Buffalo during the winter months.  Or shopping stores that buy massive inventory and rely on the profit of those sales to pay for them?  Or car dealerships?  They have to buy the cars they sell and to do that they need bank loans then pay the loans back when they sell the cars.

Yes a business starts by borrowing capital.  A bank (or lender) has to risk his/her capital on the expectation of a businesses viability.  80% Restaurants fail in their first year.  Anyone opening a restaurant understands that banks are extremely weary of loaning money for the startup.  A smart owner goes after a turn-key business.
The whole thing did not start because of failures of stores and businesses but of banks and extremely corrupt practices.  I will not post all the relevant articles - but you can google them its pretty shady.

Oh I know it didn't start from failures of stores and businesses though that didn't help.  The entire ordeal started by people being irresponsible with their credit and banks allowing them to be.

Quote from: Lorddave

I used to agree until I did the math and realized that a flat tax rate wouldn't be enough without it being extremely high.
Not only that but just think of all the accountants, tax experts, tax lawyers, and IRS employees that would suddenly be out of a job?  Every single business dedicated to helping people do taxes would sink.  Most would go out of business, resulting in a massive amount of unemployment.

Well I pointed to you where a 15% flat tax would do for Canada - I of course do not know the complete situation in the states - but the highest tax bracket is 127,021.  at 29%.  The lowest tax bracket is 15%, up to 40,970.  As for the the business who are helping people do taxes....  most of these are part time tax-time only cottage industry type jobs.  Businesses would still need tax accountants to deal with their stuff.

I also pointed out Canada did well without income taxes until 1917.

Canada has a much lower expense.
3 Trillion vs 280.5 Billion is very different.
Our Defense budget is almost 3 times the size of your entire country's annual budget.

If you do a simple division of how much money per person the government spends you get $8,313/person in Canada.

The US has $11,569/person by contrast.

So you propose that there should be no incentive to have children, go to school, purchase medications, donate money or any of the other things that tax credits encourage?

Why should the government be responsible for encouraging any of those things?

Quote from: EnigmaZV on December 09, 2010, 12:41:20 PM

So you propose that there should be no incentive to have children, go to school, purchase medications, donate money or any of the other things that tax credits encourage?

Why should the government be responsible for encouraging any of those things?

Because they're all things that historically make a country stronger.

Well, I understand that education makes a country stronger, but I don't see why the govt needs to encourage people to have children or purchase medication.  We don't get tax credits for purchasing meds down here. 

Well, I understand that education makes a country stronger, but I don't see why the govt needs to encourage people to have children or purchase medication.  We don't get tax credits for purchasing meds down here. 

Really?  You don't get to claim your medical expenses as a deduction on your taxes?  I suppose Canada just wants its people to be as healthy as possible, which is why you can claim your children's organized sports related expenses on your taxes.  Also, you get you claim monthly bus passes to encourage public tansit.

Well, apparently there are certain circumstances where a person can use medical expenses as a deduction on their taxes, but I'm not sure what the requirements are. 

Here is a list of what can be claimed as medical expenses in Canada
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns300-350/330/llwbl-eng.html

And they're very loose as to who gets to make the claiming, if my aunt buys an air conditioner because she has a note from a doctor saying she needs it, but she makes no money, I could claim it on my taxes, there's no limit as to when you can claim these expenses, but you cannot claim more than 12 months worth of expenses on any one tax return.

A capitalist system rewards the most productive. Taking away our money to give to other people is unfair.

A capitalist system rewards the most productive.

No it doesn't

A capitalist system rewards the most productive.

Guess what: not all of us worship your godhead productivity. There are more important things in life.

A capitalist system rewards the most productive. Taking away our money to give to other people is unfair.

Agreed, however in the U.S. the laws are fixed to disproportionately favor the rich.  This includes taxes, as I pointed out before where billionaires get to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than others making less.  Other examples are big banks and insurance companies making crooked and very illegal financial decisions, and getting bailed out when it flies in their faces, leaving the middle class to pay for such actions while corporations make record profits while paying almost nothing in income taxes due to tax havens.

Exxon was the most profitable company in 2009, with over 40 billion in profits, yet paid zero in federal income taxes, and got a tax refund from the government totaling in the hundreds of millions.

A true capitalist system would not be fixed this way, the markets would be competitive and companies that make bad or illegal choices would be allowed to fail, giving smaller companies a chance to compete for the customers and the assets of the larger failed companies.  Risk of failure is an important attribute in a healthy capitalist economy.

A capitalist system rewards the most productive. Taking away our money to give to other people is unfair.

Incorrect.
A capitalist system rewards those who are most capable of gaining money.

I hate to brake it to you but it's not fair.  At all.
If I can convince the federal government to give me $100 billion of their money (it's not your money once you give it to the government BTW) then I'm a capitalist and a damn good one.

Remember: A con-man is one of the best capitalists you can find because he convinces you to buy a product or service that you don't need.  It might not even exist.

I would be in support of abolishing tax returns. That might make a flat tax more fair. I know it would be bad for anyone accustomed to getting money back, but it gets abused too much. If everyone just pays the same percentage with no buts or exceptions, there is less room to complain.