If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Drudge)   Republicans planning to eliminate IRS. Kerry surrenders   (drudgereport.com) divider line 688
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

35988 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Aug 2004 at 12:20 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



688 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-08-02 05:25:47 AM
Chow- Good point (or is it), but I did that to compare apples to apples. Lets say they spend $1 million. They still pay a lower percentage of tax. Lets say they spend $1.5 million. They still pay a lower percentage of tax. Do the math.

FYI- I know more than a few guys in the city who make over a million and live just like the guy next door making $50k. Just because you make decent money you don't have to spend it all. That may be shocking to some but it is true!
 
2004-08-02 05:31:47 AM
The Bush administration has proposed yet another way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. I'm shocked.
 
2004-08-02 05:33:07 AM
gayboy
Twenty cents out of every dollar I make, twenty cents out of every dollar you make. We are all the same.
What is wrong with that?


we aren't all the same, unfortuneately. there is a bottom cutoff point where 20% of every dollar cuts into non-discretionary income for things like rent and food and health care. living costs are fixed once you get to a certain point. same goes for a sales tax, there is an absolute minimum that must be spent for surivival, below a certain point you are threatening that survival.

now if you talk about setting it so it's gradiated or eliminated below that point, then you aren't too far off from the system we already have. really poor people don't pay much income tax in this country, if at all. and really rich people don't pay much more than middle class folks. i remember when they disclosed bush's tax records it was something like 30% on an $800,000 income. i payed around 28% but with a salary that is only 5 digits.
 
2004-08-02 05:37:42 AM
gavino

but I think its a weak argument given that it makes the whole imposition so much simpler.

the imposition is hardly simple when it cuts into your non-discretionary income. making something unfair for the sake of simplicity may seem convenient but the repercussions on the economy would probably not be very simple. hard to say.
 
2004-08-02 05:42:24 AM
gay,

Using your example, if the two people spend the same, then yes, the tax will be the same. But if both spend 80% of their income, the rich guy will pay more in taxes (using a 10% national sales tax):

1) earn 50k, spend 40k, tax = 4k
2) earn 2mil, spend 1.6mil, tax = 160k

If someone wants to save their money and not spend it, good for them. But, rich people have to eat just like poor people, so that tax equals out. I think the national sales tax is making sure the rich pay their fair share of taxes since they generally tend to buy more expensive goods.
 
2004-08-02 05:44:51 AM
Wow, eliminate the IRS. Out of all the actions you could "put into action" to gain favor with voters, this has to has to be one of the most favorable. It's also sad that they even suggest such a thing, because it would take years to begin implimenting. Then how long would it take for incorporation of the new tax code crap to be set fully in place? Three years? Five years?

I used to file taxes for a few private businesses in the past, and I'm an amateur at best. A bit of research can help you cut corners legally and save you thousands. I did it for those people, and I did it when I was 16. Hiring an accountant is just a safe thing to do.

A VAT will never see the light of day in America. It's a sham, I tell you.
 
2004-08-02 05:52:55 AM
It is really easy to spot the liberals in this thread. They are the ones complaining that "rich" people should be obligated to pay 40% of their income to support your lifestyle. Go back to Canada ya hosers!

/pointless Canada bashing
 
m00
2004-08-02 06:10:15 AM
2004-08-02 05:10:52 AM Gavino

It's not a weak argument.

It takes some magic number to live in a given city. I the city I live, the magic number is probably around 10k (for a single, unmarried adult, living in an economy apartment). If you want medical insurence and some other goodies, more like 15k.

Note this is ESSENTIALS ONLY. I'm only adding up rent, food, and Value Village clothes. If you have a hobby of any sort try 20k.

But you absolutely cannot live on less than 10k year, unless you cut some serious corners, like living in a shelter or eating 3 squares of Ramen.

A flat tax would be fair if you paid the tax on (your income - the magic number).

But otherwise, it is a heavier burder. Someone making 30k/yr trying to live off 26k is in much worse shape than someone making 80k who has to live off 70k.
 
2004-08-02 06:21:20 AM
mmmmm....numbers and money......

Chow dig

Not entirly wrong, but goods and services (sales) taxes tend to hurt the poor before the rich get stung, especially when it comes to fairly generic stuff like food.

Lets say that someone earning $100,000 gross spends on average $150 a week on food. That works out to 7.8% of total income. Now lets say someone earning $25,000 spends $50 a week on food. Bearing in mind that I'm considering $50 a week on food as a minimum satisfactory level, that works out to 10.4% of total income spent on food.

Sales tax screws poor people first because they have to spend more of there income as a percentages on necessities. Rich people might get slightly farked on when they go to buy a Cayenne to take the kids to soccer in.

I think a flat but fair (ie. everyone pays a low equal rate but you can't hide from paying it with a good accountant) system is a better way to go.

/$0.02
 
2004-08-02 06:29:21 AM
I love seeing all the suckers who really think that any change in tax law under a Republican will really help someone making less than a million dollars a year.

Morans; nobody in the GOP gives a shiat about you.
 
2004-08-02 06:31:25 AM
Not a bad idea.

If the wealthy spend their money, they get taxed.
If the wealthy invest their money (which creates jobs and economic growth), they are taxed less.

Personally, I would like to see about a 15% flat tax for all income above a certain threshold (e.g. $20,000/yr single, $40,000 married, +$5,000/year per dependent), but either way the tax code needs reforming.

Though it may sound harsh, the poor do need to pay taxes, even if they get it all back in a refund. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Politicans can basically promise to take from 49% and give to 51% and still win elections. Everyone needs to feel that government services come from somewhere and that there is no such thing as a free ride.
 
2004-08-02 06:33:06 AM
Of course, this will happen when a flock of pigs takes flight over the frozen lake of fire.
 
2004-08-02 06:36:40 AM
1) That'll never happen

2) Drudge is not news
 
2004-08-02 06:42:55 AM
Republicans also pledge to give free ice cream and cute puppies to every American
 
2004-08-02 06:54:58 AM
2004-08-01 10:43:07 PM calamidi

Wow. Nothing quite like eliminating the progressive income tax (which is designed to tax you heavily *after* you've made enough money to afford your food) and replacing it with a regressive tax (which sees no problem in taxing the food right out of poor people's mouths.)

I'm an upper-class white male. I know that I *deserve* to pay a higher percentage of the money I touch to the government than someone who is living hand to mouth. If anything, all state sales taxes should be immediately repealed (and replaced with income and property taxes.)
You are welcome to volunteer to pay extra!

But DO NOT volunteer me. Your white liberal guilt and Marxist worldview are none of my damn problem, Mr. Raines.
 
2004-08-02 06:57:11 AM
great idea, but don't think it'll happen for two reasons.

1. The last President that tried to eliminate the IRS was ASSASSINATED....

2. A large portion of the U.S. citizenship will see this as "eliminating jobs for the little guy", which is typical "ITS THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO MAKE SURE I HAVE A JOB" bullshiat.

The IRS isn't even a government agency, just like Lockheed Martin isn't a government agency, but they still manufacture fighter plans FOR the government.

The bottom line is the IRS is a pork-barrel agency used to generate money for greedy-ass politicians who have the power to take money from the people who earned it, and use it to influence others and pay for their kids private schooling.

The tax codes are complicated, confusing, and ask 10 different CPAs what is and isn't taxable, and you'll get 10 different answers.

If the government would make a flat tax so that every citizen would pay the same across the board, no matter the income, it would allow businesses to grow, instead of HINDERING growth, because the more a business would make, the more it would able to keep.

After all, who gives anyone the right to tell you how much of the money you've EARNED you actually get to KEEP?

Anyone in favor of taxing "the rich" more than "everyone else" is jealous, lazy, and unhappy.
 
2004-08-02 06:57:21 AM
I'll go slightly more complcated than flat tax for a moment. Would it be better if there was a flat tax of say 20% for below $100,000 and have a sliding scale up to say 50% at $10million? My reasoning for the high top end being that the lifestyle difference between those earning $100,000 and $10,000,000 are A LOT less than between those earning 20,000 and 100,000.

My reality check for those that think that 50% is too high is this. At $10mill you can only buy 3 enzo's this year and still have enough to live like a king instead of 7.
Boo farking hoo...

And I suppose if at that end of the income bracket your dumb enough to end up with that high a level of personal income, you deserve to have your money taken from you...
 
2004-08-02 07:03:07 AM
Omni:
Just for the record, if it was up to you the whole country one big Crotchester.

Put some damn pants on. Lemme guess, RIT?
 
2004-08-02 07:08:34 AM
Dave The Slushy

"My reasoning for the high top end being that the lifestyle difference between those earning $100,000 and $10,000,000 are A LOT less than between those earning 20,000 and 100,000. "


This opinion PROVES the existance of this whole bullshiat "class envy" crap!

Guys like Bill Gates and Mark Cuban started out just like everybody else, but found a way to make a product millions of people wanted and were willing to pay for.

They did it on their own, and were able to make a killing on it.

Therefore, according to this bullshiat "its not FAIR they're rich" mindset, we should penalize them because they're successful!

Thats RETARDED!

If the guy making 100,000 want to live the lifestyle of the millionaire, THEN GO OUT AND EARN A MILLION, BIATCH!
 
2004-08-02 07:09:41 AM
Unlikely.
 
2004-08-02 07:13:32 AM
I was talking to someone about this last night and they said it was unfair because people like Bill Gates can afford to pay 50% or more of their income and live comfortably and should do so to make the rest of the country better off. So much for equality. Yeah, the rich people have more money than poor people, but they employ people, they invest in other companies which creates jobs (take an economics course if you don't think that's true), there'd be no incentive to invent, work hard, and innovate to get more money if you're just going to be taxed down to the middle class level. That's not equality, that's wealth redistribution. If someone feels they should pay more taxes than they are required to help the country, then there should be a push for a box on the 1040 form to volunteer more money, especially for the rich people who are on TV right now telling me that other rich people should pay more.

The flat tax or national sales tax is a great idea. If you buy anything, you pay, or 10%-20% is taken out of every paycheck. No loopholes, not tax breaks to grab ahold of and avoid paying. Sure there are people that will try to find ways to dodge it, and will likely succeed, but guess what? Some people do that now as it is and the government still gets enough money not to shut down.

Right now, we get money taken out of our paychecks before we get them. We pay taxes when we go to the grocery store or Wal-Mart. We pay luxury taxes on boats, planes, cars (in some places). We pay property taxes on our homes, land, and vehicles after we've already paid taxes on them to purchase them in the first place. If someone is serious about implementing a flat tax or national sales tax to get rid of the IRS, then I'll seriously look at voting for them.

What to do with all of the IRS employees that will be out of a job? Not all of them will be out of work as the government would still need employees to monitor the incoming taxes. The money the government would save though without having those thousands of employees and buildings would be huge and benefit all of us. Jobs for those IRS employees laid off? Go to Careerbuilder.com sometime if you don't think there are jobs to be had. I was looking at jobs in Orlando and there were over 4000 listed. About 1000 for Wichita, KS. Every major city had at least 4000 jobs and a large number of them were comfortable living wage +.
 
m00
2004-08-02 07:14:26 AM
2004-08-02 06:57:11 AM Mike_71

Well, if you give me a revolution first where I get to return to the People the things that belong to the People (National Forests, public airwaves...)then I'd agree.

Two problems though:

The wealthiest 1% have their hands on 70% of the nation's wealth. And it's getting worse.

Did they get this wealth through hard work? Nope. Most of it is inhereted. And a lot of it orginated from government kickbacks and handouts. Remember the Teapot Dome scandal? Whitewater? Haliburton? These things happen all the time.

The sad truth is, a lot of that wealth is tied up in a circle whereby the wealthy buy a politician, get him elected, and the politician directly or indirectly funnels more money (taxpayer money) back into whatever organization got him there.

Most corporations don't have to pay income tax. You and me do, and corporations were afforded all the same rights as citizens in a early 1900s supreme court case. So why don't they have to pay?

They can make themselves residents of Bermuda. Sure, they still get government handouts, but don't have to pay taxes. Where does all those handouts go? CEO salaries and bailouts when a CEO or CFO loots a company dry, buys a 20 million dollar home in Florida, and declares bankruptcy (cuz in Florida, you get to keep the house!). Government steps in, taxpayers get screwed, shareholder gets screwed, rich get richer.

Break that cycle first. Stop it from ever happening again. Make it so every billionare is a Sam Walton and not a Rupert Murdoch. Then we can talk about the fact the wealthy actually earned their money, thus deserving every penny. But until then, a lot of that wealth was aquired through gaming our government.
 
m00
2004-08-02 07:17:04 AM
2004-08-02 07:08:34 AM Mike_71

Guys like Bill Gates and Mark Cuban started out just like everybody else, but found a way to make a product millions of people wanted and were willing to pay for.

Bill Gates was funded by his VERY rich uncle. Unless you have a rich uncle willing to fund your startup, Bill Gates didn't start out like you.
 
2004-08-02 07:17:24 AM
What if I make $10 million a year and only spend tree fitty?
 
2004-08-02 07:19:32 AM
Did they get this wealth through hard work? Nope. Most of it is inhereted.

The vast majority of millionares are first-generation millionaires.

But until then, a lot of that wealth was aquired through gaming our government.

Which, really, is an excellent argument for reducing the size and scope of government.
 
2004-08-02 07:20:40 AM
Somehow I highly doubt either candidate will do this.
 
2004-08-02 07:22:01 AM
What, not one single Irwin R. Schyster pic?
 
2004-08-02 07:24:20 AM
As far as regressive taxing, just eliminate the sales tax on
essentials like groceries. Everything you need to live is tax free
and you have to pay up when you want those extras. An income tax is a
tax on everything you buy. It's also too complex for the average
person to completely understand, so most people don't even knows how
much they're getting screwed.
 
2004-08-02 07:28:37 AM
m00

"The wealthiest 1% have their hands on 70% of the nation's wealth. And it's getting worse.

Did they get this wealth through hard work? Nope. Most of it is inhereted. And a lot of it orginated from government kickbacks and handouts."


I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because after the part about "did they get this wealth through hard work?" and "most of it is INHERITED" (you misspelled "inherited". Sorry. Mom is a teacher.), it's evident you're making an assumption that MOST of the rich DIDN'T WORK FOR IT.

What about the "poor" fella working at the steel mill for 20 years who suddenly hits the lottery?\

One of my best friends IS that guy!

Forty-two years old, worked at Crown Steel in Wooster, Ohio, doing 10 and 12 hour days welding bay frames for 15 years, and finally hit the lottery.

Now he's got 20 million in the bank, but according to you, didn't EARN it, therefore, doesn't deserve to keep the bulk of it.

I guarentee you that if you told him that to his face, and told him he had to fork over 50% so YOU or some government arsehole could "redistribute it" to those who DIDN'T win the lottery, he'd kick you in the nuts, and everyone in that factory would want a turn at your crotch too!
 
2004-08-02 07:32:55 AM
What if I won the lottery and only spend tree fitty?
 
2004-08-02 07:39:25 AM
Therefore, according to this bullshiat "its not FAIR they're rich" mindset, we should penalize them because they're successful!

Thats RETARDED!


Again, here's a hanky.....now, take the silver spoon out and stop crying. NO! NO PORCHE FOR YOU UNTIL YOU MAKE YOUR FIRST MILLION!

OK. Sending 50% to the IRS would blow for anyone. The money would do more good as compost. So would a better alternative be to "recommend" donation of up to 30% dependent on income to an appropriate charity (local public school, health insurance for underprivlaged kids, a silver bullet with bin Laden's name on it, whatever gives you a warm fuzzy) be a better idea? Doesn't Bill Gates already do something like that? Don't know the numbers, but he donates a hell of a lot each year to polio and aids charities.
 
2004-08-02 07:49:38 AM
No IRS? Far-out man, far-f^@%ing-out.

m00 you need to do more research, the vast majority of current millionaires in the US are first generation, ie, self-made. But you'll actually have to go research this yourself, no hand outs today. It's early and I have a bad-case-of-tha-mundays.
 
2004-08-02 07:49:47 AM
m00

"Bill Gates was funded by his VERY rich uncle. Unless you have a rich uncle willing to fund your startup, Bill Gates didn't start out like you."

I DO have a rich "relative". And I'm sure if I came up with a widget to sell, but needed an "investor" to start it up, she would probably be willing to do so, seeing it as a business opportunity for the both of us.

The bottom line is, in this country, if you can INVENT a product, and figure out a way to make a whole bunch and sell them, then you have the opportunity to BECOME wealthy.

It's why this country is the greatest in the history of mankind.

Sure, Bill Gate's uncle helped him start Microsoft, but it was BILL'S IDEA, not his uncle's.

You hate Bill Gates just because you don't think he deserves to have a rich uncle to fund his invention.

That's called a "resource", which presents "opportunity".

If you have them, use them.

If you're jealous of someone who has them because you don't, then you're an arsehole.
 
2004-08-02 07:50:45 AM
Uh, so the IRS is gone, well, some federal agency will have to administer the VAT... Doh!

And in the experience of most VAT collecting governments, the federal VAT collecting agency will be huge, cost a great deal to run and still incur businesses with lots of headaches and accountants.

Some Euro countries promised to get rid of income tax when they introduced their VAT. Guess how long that lasted? Now they have huge VAT sales taxes and Income taxes, wonderful..

And once it's pointed out to the average American that the rich will get a huge beneift from this, and that the average tax paid by the the average american will rise to fund this 'tax cut for the rich', VAT's will sink like a lead ballon.

The huge problem with a VAT is that average people typically spend a huge percentage of their income on 'stuff'. While rich people typically spend a much smaller proportion of their income on 'stuff'. I mean, how much food can you eat? Since the VAT is a tax is on stuff you buy, the average shmoe will suck up most of the VAT tax hit, leaving the rich with a lot more money in their pocket and the average shmoe with less.
 
2004-08-02 07:50:56 AM
The IRS taxes the money you earn and not what you have, so these "old
money" claims are idiotic. The fact is the "rich" people that get
reamed by the income tax are those building up small to medium sized
businesses. The more money you move, which means the more you add the
economy, the bigger your taxes get.
 
2004-08-02 07:51:32 AM
It's not like the Repubes are terribly concerned with collecting taxes, anyway.

Tax-cut-and-spend Bushies - beautiful. Can't wait 'til he's a lame duck just like his dad.
 
2004-08-02 07:52:48 AM
republican's giving lip service to being conservative?

pardon me while i run thru the lyrics to 'end of the world as we know it' to see if this nugget is prophesied.
 
2004-08-02 07:53:17 AM
Lottery winnings aren't taxable (unreliable income or something) right?
 
2004-08-02 07:53:44 AM
Wow even more radical than the flat tax! Not like corporations pay taxes anyhow.

Republican plan: starve domestic government agencies.
Democratic plan: complain about Republican plan. Suggest no genuine (much less as radical) alternative.

Won't be that long before even state names get corporate sponsors. Welcome to the new millenium.
 
m00
2004-08-02 07:55:39 AM
2004-08-02 07:19:32 AM Sloth_DC

The vast majority of millionares are first-generation millionaires.

Well, then maybe I meant to say "top .5%" Lets say, everyone that has more than 10-15 mil or so. Will you assert those are 1st generation wealth?

Which, really, is an excellent argument for reducing the size and scope of government.

Yes! I have always said that the ONLY job of the Federal Government, is to secure my inalienable rights as granted by my Creator, some of which are enumerated in the US Constitution.

2004-08-02 07:28:37 AM Mike_71

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because after the part about "did they get this wealth through hard work?" and "most of it is INHERITED" (you misspelled "inherited". Sorry. Mom is a teacher.), it's evident you're making an assumption that MOST of the rich DIDN'T WORK FOR IT.

Did your mom teach you anything else? If you are only going to read past the second line of my post why do you bother even posting a response?

But in any event, it's not an assumption. Working in a steel mill is work. You go in, you do a job, you get paid. Say you get paid 40k/yr. Great.

CEOs make what? An average of 400x that? Are you REALLY saying a CEO is 400x smarter/better/industrious than your average steel mill worker? Managers don't work. They play golf. They get their jobs because they "went to the right school" and was "in the right frat," etc, etc.

How did they get there? For the most part, lineage.

Again, Bill Gates was funded by his very rich uncle. Bush's dad and grandfather were beyond wealthy. Cheney comes from money. If you look at the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, the vast majority come from money. Sam Walton is an exception to the rule. He's the sort of centimillionare we need. Not Dick Cheneys and Ken Lays.

Ever heard the phrase "it takes money to make money"?

Your buddy got lucky. Did he "work" for that lottery ticket? No, he gambled. Is he entitled to it? I say: yes. Please don't assume I'd say otherwise ESPECIALLY if you didn't read the rest of my post.

If you are going to bash me on spelling, allow me to bash you on logic. If you don't read past the second line on someone's post, please don't think you are an authority on what they would say about a given subject.
 
2004-08-02 07:56:19 AM
Mike_71
Sure, Bill Gate's uncle helped him start Microsoft, but it was BILL'S IDEA

Yeah, it's not like he stole that whole Windows thing from Apple or anything.

God, Republicans are dumb.
 
2004-08-02 07:59:22 AM
If rich people start screaming about how this tax sucks, I'll be all for it. I'm betting they'll be real happy about it.
 
m00
2004-08-02 08:02:38 AM
2004-08-02 07:49:47 AM Mike_71

Also, from:

I guarentee you that if you told him that to his face, and told him he had to fork over 50% so YOU or some government arsehole could "redistribute it" to those who DIDN'T win the lottery, he'd kick you in the nuts, and everyone in that factory would want a turn at your crotch too!

It's wonderful your friend would resort to assault over someone's position on tax code. That speaks volumes.

I DO have a rich "relative". And I'm sure if I came up with a widget to sell, but needed an "investor" to start it up, she would probably be willing to do so, seeing it as a business opportunity for the both of us.

Eh, wrong again, in comparing this to BillG. Bill did not write DOS. He purchased it, for 10k, from a guy who did not have a rich uncle to invest in HIS startup.

The bottom line is, in this country, if you can INVENT a product, and figure out a way to make a whole bunch and sell them, then you have the opportunity to BECOME wealthy.

Bill did not invent Windows. Xerox did. Well, Apple stole it from Xerox. In any event, Bill did not invent DOS. He bought it, using the money from his rich uncle, and started a company on someone else's idea. How? Cuz he had money and the someone else didn't.

Sure, Bill Gate's uncle helped him start Microsoft, but it was BILL'S IDEA, not his uncle's.

No. It was the idea of the guy who wrote DOS, but didn't have the rich uncle.
 
2004-08-02 08:04:21 AM
DavetheSlushy... you can't be serious can you? Of course lottery winnings are taxed.
 
2004-08-02 08:04:23 AM
So is this idea conservative or liberal? And if it is conservative, does that mean all the "real" Republicans mad at Bush will agree with him about something finally?
 
2004-08-02 08:04:23 AM
OK. Sales taxes have the effect of increasing the amount of wealth people accumulate, by rewarding saving rather than spending. However, this move would do things to the US economy Al Queda can only have wet dreams about.

Lets say I'm a fairly reputable business in the USA, and I suddenly have to start charging 20% VAT on everything I sell. Here's what happens next:

1) I have to add another 3-5% to prices to cover the cost of accounting the VAT, even if I claim most of is back as tax credits for supplies purchased to make my product or service.
2) Sales drop, because the public will be initially spending out of income that was taxed under the olds system and reals from this massive second bite of the cherry and sticker shock. I have to lay off some people, or outsorce their positions. So does everyone else. The economic dynamo slows, people and businesses can't pay their bills, and the lights start to go out across America.
3) Some cheapstake, fly-by-night operation from Mexico starts selling the same stuff online, untaxed. Customers all bugger off and buy from the guy who doesn't have to charge sales taxes and can't be caught for not doing so.
Most of the time they'll get away with it, because enforcing sales taxes on small imports (under $25 per shipment) is not worth the effort, nor the backlash you get if people find their holiday gifts from friends and relatives abroad arriving with a taxes-payable invoice.

It will also add a layer of bureaucracy to doing above-board business with the USA from abroad. The VAT/GST system in Europe is one thing I am really, really glad I don't have to deal with right now - it is horribly perverted and complex. Even European universities and charities have to waste massive energies accounting for VAT, and the rebate they are able to claim at the end of it usually doesn't cover the costs of meeting this bureaucratic obligation.

Drudge cites the cost of having a CPA do your taxes as a reason people will like this. Actually, the CPAs would be the first ones to applaud this move, because accounting for VAT and all its input tax credits is more work than income taxes any day.

On average, I pay my CPA less than 5% of what I pay in tax. It's not as if I couldn't do my return myself, I just prefer to have some else to blame! My small business spends at least twice as much each year calculating GST as we get in our net rebate (we're in Canada, so we already have to waste efforts on this). We get a net rebate because we export, and if the US introduces a blanket sales tax we would probably have to collect that and account for it too. At which point I might as well say fark it, and sit my accountancy exam so I can profit from everyone else's misery!
 
2004-08-02 08:06:31 AM
This sounds like a half-assed excuse for republicans to get more voters on their side.

Hey, it got Steve Forbes on SNL, didn't it?
 
2004-08-02 08:06:33 AM
I think you should have to present I.D. before commenting in a thread like this. Until then, it's gonna be 95% kiddies saying:

R1CH P30Pl3 = Teh SUx0r!!!

Without the rich, you would either be:

A) Dead.

or

B) Living off of the land 18th century style.
 
m00
2004-08-02 08:07:47 AM
2004-08-02 07:49:38 AM Manos

Well, I'll retract the statement and replace it with "decamillionares." And, as always, it all depends on how you count.

During the late 90s, right before the crash, there was a month or two where all my stocks aligned right and I was worth a very good chuck of a mil. But several of my mutual fund companies were engaging in illegal dealings and ripping of investors (big name funds, too). I guess those wealthy MBA guys "worked" harder for my money than I did, right? And they deserved every penny they stole, from all the investors, right?

In my PERSONAL experience, that is how people get wealthy. By ripping off the middle to upper-middle class.
 
2004-08-02 08:09:09 AM
And I promise to find the ancient Aztec 7 Lost Cities of Gold, bring dinosaurs back to life through advanced cloning techniques and create an amusement park around them, and defeat Ming the Merciless and bring peace and harmony throughout the galaxy.

Can I be President too?
 
Displayed 50 of 688 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report