The Father / Daughter Talk

[rox@ucf11]

Originally Posted by marchand

Yeah, taxes have to be uniform, not wealth.

thats what I was getting at lol

also lulubelle I disagree with your consumption or "sales" tax, on everything but non essential items, for it to be fair there would have to be no exemptions, and no reductions, because you know eventually congree would go to far whith it, what is an essential item, does that differ amongst people?

[Lulubelle]

Umm Rox, the idea of a consumption tax is a conservative one borrowed from my Republican friends. You might want to do a little bit more research before poo-pooing it. I wish i had time to expound on it, but I have to go to work to earn part of the 70 thousand dollars in taxes I will pay this year.

And for all, I never advocated for redistribution of wealth. That was term used earlier by someone else who was disparaging other's opinions that were perceived as "liberal". The point most of you seem to miss is that Congress HAS ALREADY REDISTRIBUTED WEALTH via a very unfair tax code that benefits the wealthiest and socks it to the rest of us wage earners. I simply think our tax code needs to be fixed so that there are not so many loopholes for the very wealthy and so that wage earners have a shot.

Some of you are arguing against your own interests in this thread, me thinks perhaps that you do no understand the tax code as it stands today across the spectrum of incomes. I am thinking particularly of the person who was unhappy that he worked more hours than his friend and took home 50 dollars less. That is exactly what I have been advocating for, that the tax code is revamped in a way that does not penalize people unfairly in ways like this.

OK, I am signing off of this thread, have fun. Need to get back to paying the tax man and learning about scuba here.

[kong]

The Fair/Consumption tax will never pass. The accounting firms threw a major fit after they could no longer do consulting work for their audit clients after Enron, but they realized they had screwed up and they had to go along with the flow and accept it to avoid even more regulations being imposed on them. This was a really big deal because firms would often make about 5 million off an audit and an additional 50 million from consulting work.

Now the only real service accounting firms can provide for their audit clients is tax work. If the fair tax or a consumption tax is imposed, they will loose this line of work also as a 5 year old will be able to do the tax returns and no planning would be involved since the cost is passed off to the consumer and not paid by the company. The four biggest accounting firms in the country had a combined revenue of over $100 billion last year and employed a little over half a million people. Those kind of numbers get you a little bit of power in Washington. Then you can toss on all the other smaller accounting firms who are mostly dependent on tax work and there is a pretty large base who will do almost anything to keep the tax code the way it is.

The fair/consumption tax would also hurt non-profits. If people don't get a tax break for making charitable donations, do you think they will still do it? A majority of the people probably will because it is the right thing to do, but a lot of the donations will dry up.

Also the fair/consumption tax is not really that fair. It still taxes poorer people more than the wealthy. With savings rates where they are, a middle class family of four probably consumes most of their income or even more than their income if you toss on credit cards. So they will essentially pay taxes on all of their income.

On the other hand, the wealthy don't proportionally consume as much as middle class or poorer individuals. They spend more in terms of dollars but as a percentage of income, they consume less. The majority of their income is reinvested in assets to produce even more income. So the rich will still get richer, they just will not pay taxes until they spend their money.

[rox@ucf11]

Originally Posted by Lulubelle

Umm Rox, the idea of a consumption tax is a conservative one borrowed from my Republican friends. You might want to do a little bit more research before poo-pooing it. I wish i had time to expound on it, but I have to go to work to earn part of the 70 thousand dollars in taxes I will pay this year.

And for all, I never advocated for redistribution of wealth. That was term used earlier by someone else who was disparaging other's opinions that were perceived as "liberal". The point most of you seem to miss is that Congress HAS ALREADY REDISTRIBUTED WEALTH via a very unfair tax code that benefits the wealthiest and socks it to the rest of us wage earners. I simply think our tax code needs to be fixed so that there are not so many loopholes for the very wealthy and so that wage earners have a shot.

Some of you are arguing against your own interests in this thread, me thinks perhaps that you do no understand the tax code as it stands today across the spectrum of incomes. I am thinking particularly of the person who was unhappy that he worked more hours than his friend and took home 50 dollars less. That is exactly what I have been advocating for, that the tax code is revamped in a way that does not penalize people unfairly in ways like this.

OK, I am signing off of this thread, have fun. Need to get back to paying the tax man and learning about scuba here.

it is Irrevalent where it was taken from, this is what I believe. The Republican/Conservative view point, does not in the least encompass all of my views, but I will say that more of my views do allign with the conservative view point rather than the liberal.

Alright on to other things...
so to be a devils advocate real quick here, and by the way this is not really what I believe, but I believe lulubelle that you said your wealthy friend, I believe you said he was a contractor, paid much less in taxes than you did correct? Well if he had more money with which to work with, couldnt he take more projects on?, create more jobs?, pay higher wages?, and thus contribute more to the economy?, I think this is where the big buisness point of view comes from, and it is not entirely flawed I wouldnt think, but we all know that both sides of the coin have there advantages and disadvatages, hopefully we can just find a system that works better in the middle.

[h2odragon1]

Originally Posted by Lulubelle

OK, that was funny...but...in talking about "redistribution of wealth" as you call it, we are not talking about a GPA for goodness sake, we are talking about giving people the ability to feed their children, put a roof over their families head, getting proper healthcare for their families, etc. I grew up in Republican household myself. 12 years of being face to face with people in need have shown me that most people in unfortunate circumstances do NOT do it to themselves. Life happens. They have a sick family member, lose their house and business as a result, etc. Or maybe they didn't have the chance for a good education and are slogging it away in a low paying career. We aren't talking about people who are on Medicaid and having lots of babies. We are talking about people who are working, who get no assistance of any kind, who don't have health care, and who make more than the 980 dollars a month gross that an individual has to make less than to qualify for medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance, or a decent home, or good food for the kids etc. I'm not sure when people on this earth decided that they had no obligation to anyone other than themselves, but we all live together, and in my book, if I am fortunate I have a moral duty to try to improve the lot of others who are less so.

For the record, I didn't become a committed Moderate Democrat until later in life, and I am one of the financially fortunate who will be in the bucket of being taxed more under our Democratic Congress.

DId you give any of these people your money? It would have helped them in their time of need. Or did you simply become offened that 'OTHERS' were'nt helping. You had an advantage, you knew of these persons needs, and What did YOU DO?

[georoc01]

Originally Posted by kong

The Fair/Consumption tax will never pass. The accounting firms threw a major fit after they could no longer do consulting work for their audit clients after Enron, but they realized they had screwed up and they had to go along with the flow and accept it to avoid even more regulations being imposed on them. This was a really big deal because firms would often make about 5 million off an audit and an additional 50 million from consulting work.

Now the only real service accounting firms can provide for their audit clients is tax work. If the fair tax or a consumption tax is imposed, they will loose this line of work also as a 5 year old will be able to do the tax returns and no planning would be involved since the cost is passed off to the consumer and not paid by the company. The four biggest accounting firms in the country had a combined revenue of over $100 billion last year and employed a little over half a million people. Those kind of numbers get you a little bit of power in Washington. Then you can toss on all the other smaller accounting firms who are mostly dependent on tax work and there is a pretty large base who will do almost anything to keep the tax code the way it is.

The fair/consumption tax would also hurt non-profits. If people don't get a tax break for making charitable donations, do you think they will still do it? A majority of the people probably will because it is the right thing to do, but a lot of the donations will dry up.

Also the fair/consumption tax is not really that fair. It still taxes poorer people more than the wealthy. With savings rates where they are, a middle class family of four probably consumes most of their income or even more than their income if you toss on credit cards. So they will essentially pay taxes on all of their income.

On the other hand, the wealthy don't proportionally consume as much as middle class or poorer individuals. They spend more in terms of dollars but as a percentage of income, they consume less. The majority of their income is reinvested in assets to produce even more income. So the rich will still get richer, they just will not pay taxes until they spend their money.

What's ironic about that is the accounting firms are more busy than ever with all of the business that Sabarnes Oxley has given them post Enron.

It created more accounting and IT positions that didn't add any value to companies across the board to support all of the additional audit documentation required by those laws.

[rox@ucf11]

Originally Posted by kong

The Fair/Consumption tax will never pass. The accounting firms threw a major fit after they could no longer do consulting work for their audit clients after Enron, but they realized they had screwed up and they had to go along with the flow and accept it to avoid even more regulations being imposed on them. This was a really big deal because firms would often make about 5 million off an audit and an additional 50 million from consulting work.

Now the only real service accounting firms can provide for their audit clients is tax work. If the fair tax or a consumption tax is imposed, they will loose this line of work also as a 5 year old will be able to do the tax returns and no planning would be involved since the cost is passed off to the consumer and not paid by the company. The four biggest accounting firms in the country had a combined revenue of over $100 billion last year and employed a little over half a million people. Those kind of numbers get you a little bit of power in Washington. Then you can toss on all the other smaller accounting firms who are mostly dependent on tax work and there is a pretty large base who will do almost anything to keep the tax code the way it is.

The fair/consumption tax would also hurt non-profits. If people don't get a tax break for making charitable donations, do you think they will still do it? A majority of the people probably will because it is the right thing to do, but a lot of the donations will dry up.

Also the fair/consumption tax is not really that fair. It still taxes poorer people more than the wealthy. With savings rates where they are, a middle class family of four probably consumes most of their income or even more than their income if you toss on credit cards. So they will essentially pay taxes on all of their income.

On the other hand, the wealthy don't proportionally consume as much as middle class or poorer individuals. They spend more in terms of dollars but as a percentage of income, they consume less. The majority of their income is reinvested in assets to produce even more income. So the rich will still get richer, they just will not pay taxes until they spend their money.

It wont pass because congress likes having the controlling ability to throw around tax exemptions, to penelize or to help, and also likes the ability to raise and lower taxes of different things.

[BSea]

Back on Topic.

I actually used the Father/Daughter talk with my daughter this morning. It was almost word for word with the story. When she blurted "I EARNED MY GRADES", there was a moment of silence cuz she knew I had her. Of course I completed the talk with "Welcome to the Republican party". I only wish I had it video taped so I could share the look on her face.

[kong]

Originally Posted by georoc01

What's ironic about that is the accounting firms are more busy than ever with all of the business that Sabarnes Oxley has given them post Enron.

It created more accounting and IT positions that didn't add any value to companies across the board to support all of the additional audit documentation required by those laws.

SOX has gotten to the point where it is routine. There was a big run up to get compliant and to over do the work because no one wanted to be the first to screw up post-Enron but now everything has settled down. They are also reviewing a lot of the rules imposed by SOX and reconsidering some of the changes that are unnecesary. A lot of firms are laying off or not hiring as many people because they overhired in the first few years after SOX because no one really knew what to do.

[Lulubelle]

Originally Posted by h2odragon1

DId you give any of these people your money? It would have helped them in their time of need. Or did you simply become offened that 'OTHERS' were'nt helping. You had an advantage, you knew of these persons needs, and What did YOU DO?

Dagnabbit, I signed off of this thread, and you baited me again.

What did I do? Yes, I give my money to charitable organizations who can reach these basic needs, mainly my church which serves the needy locally without any overhead costs that dilute my contributions.

The other thing I did? I chose to devote my entire career to helping people who are less fortunate than most. My work recently took me up to a beat up old trailer in the mountains to see a lady who is now dead from small cell lung cancer and a rare genetic disease. Her husband followed her 3 weeks later. She lived graciously on a very meager disability income and had a hard time accepting help but in the end she had to. She had a high school education and was a hairdresser. Her husband was a truck driver until he too became disabled many years ago. These people exist, and I care about them and feel that as a member of the human race we all should.

What did you do H20Dragon? How are you going to make the world a better place?

IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU, IT ISN'T ABOUT ME.

Really signing off now...I'm going to find the "tolerant of other's viewpoints thread."