[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Apple's first vice president of diversity stepping down after six months in the job, report says

NY Times Reporter Calls For Censorship of Creepy Videos Of Joe Biden Inappropriately Touching Kids

Al Franken accuser says disgusting USO tour grope photo was an 'in your face' parting shot after nearly two weeks of being 'belittled and humiliated' by future senator

Alabama G.O.P. Says It Stands Behind Roy Moore

Florida Man Being Chased By Police Asks 911 To Call Donald Trump

Ex-Cops Who Fought Against Legal Weed Just Opened a Marijuana Business

Police mistook hibiscus plants for marijuana, arrested Buffalo Township couple, suit claims

Cops Accidentally Film Themselves Planting Cocaine in a Man’s Wallet

FDA, DEA Launch Massive Assault On Kratom – Drug War for Miracle Plant Ramping Up

‘Come Meet a Black Person’ Event in Atlanta

After Admitting to Secretly Experimenting on Troops, Army Refusing to Provide Them Medical Care

A Sheriff Just Threatened Charges Over ‘F*ck Trump’ Sticker — and the Internet Is Destroying Him

Cops Accuse Innocent Man of Breaking Into His Own Truck—So They Shot Him, Twice

"I've Been Banned From Facebook For Sharing An Article About False Flags"

Health Effects: Alcohol vs. Marijuana

Toledo Cops Raid Wrong House, Kill Dogs, Thousands in Damage

Clearwater Beach man facing eviction over emotional support squirrel

U.S. Chamber:"Dreamers" Make America, Americans Have No Role

FBI Seeks Senate Documents on Abortionists' Sale of Fetal Tissue, Body Parts

oman accuses Al Franken of kissing, groping her without consent

What is the worst restaurant experience you ever had?

Judge Moore Sends Defiant Open Letters to Hannity After Fox News Host Gives Him Ultimatum

Trump's cheeseburger draws a crowd at Tokyo restaurant

The universal Rebel and the psy-op to neuter him

Cops Beat Innocent Homeless Man to a Pulp Because He Was Sleeping

Congresswoman: Taxpayers Have Paid $15 MILLION to Silence Sexual Abuse Victims of Politicians

2017 a Record Year for Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan (The fruits of 16 years of war)

New Wisconsin Gun Law Lets Kids Of Any Age Hunt If An Adult "Mentor" Is Present

The Rot Inside the Republican Party

US hires company with KGB link to guard Moscow embassy

People for sale (Libyan slave markets)

MUST SEE=> Roy Moore Signature Inside Accuser’s Yearbook Is Written in TWO DIFFERENT COLOR Inks

Hannity: Moore Must Explain ‘Inconsistencies’ and ‘Remove Any Doubt’ Within 24 Hours or ‘Get Out of This Race’ (Hannity Sells Out, Betrays Conservatives)

Suspended Sheriff to Pay $3M After Warrantless Search of High School Students

How to Understand JFK Conspiracy Theories

Is America Becoming A Police State Where Churches Can’t Feed The Homeless And Kids Can’t Set Up Lemonade Stands?

Cop Fires 16 Rounds at ‘Non-Aggressive’ Dogs, Kills One, Lets Other Suffer to Death

Body Cam Shows Cops Lose It During Raid and Try to Kill Each Other

Denver Cashes in by Seizing Cars for Low-Level Crimes, Even Without Convictions

This could never be shown on TV these days

Hannity’s ‘laughing his a** off’ at fans smashing their Keurigs, promises these prizes for best video

3 UCLA players return to US after China shoplifting incident

Ex-ESPN reporter blasts GQ over ‘joke’ Kaepernick award

Trump Junior colluded with Wikileaks

Epileptic Girl Sues Sessions to Legalize Medical Marijuana Nationwide

Firefox Quantum is here...

Uber Driver Arrested, Charged With a Felony—For Returning a Lost iPhone

Cops Threaten Mom at Child’s Bus Stop to Make Sure She’d Vaccinated Her Son

Planned King County Gun Confiscations Foreshadow Larger, Wider Plans

‘I Was a Child’: George H.W. Bush Accused of Sexually Assaulting Teen Girl


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Trump’s direction is a road to ruin
Source: The West Australian
URL Source: https://thewest.com.au/opinion/shan ... a-road-to-kansas-ng-b88654352z
Published: Nov 13, 2017
Author: Shane Wright , Economics Editor
Post Date: 2017-11-13 10:23:02 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 193
Comments: 37

Mention Kansas and people’s minds turn to Dorothy, Toto and the yellow brick road.

That view almost always turns on the technicolour version of The Wizard of Oz. Not the black, white, dusty and generally unforgiving opening (and closing) shots of Kansas.

Beyond that, however, it would be difficult for anyone outside of the US (and even outside of the mid-west) to name anything of note about the Sunflower State.

But for the past five years Kansas has also been the centre of an important tax change.

And the proponents of that change have been left with a lot of egg all over their faces.

In 2010, the good people of Kansas elected Republican Sam Brownback as the state’s governor.

His aim was to slash taxes on companies. When I say slash, I actually mean effectively get rid of it.

So in 2012 he took the state’s business tax rate down to zero.

Slashing the state’s business tax to nothing would have a major impact on the budget. But Brownback argued that the increase in economic activity precipitated by the tax nirvana that Kansas would become meant it would be self-funding.

Five years on, the Kansas Budget is a mess. Schools, for instance, had their funding cut so deeply it led to court action while infrastructure repairs such as those for the state’s highways had to be stopped.

As revenues into the budget fell, the state was forced to raise its sales tax. Sales tax, like the GST, is regressive in that lower income earners spend a far greater proportion of their weekly pay cheque than higher income earners.

“Kansas is a beautiful natural experiment of tax reform. An example of what happens in the real world.”

While Brownback has argued the state has taken a hit due to outside factors such as falling commodity prices, none of these problems seem to have affected surrounding states that did not engage in his tax reform.

He claimed his tax cuts would generate 25,000 private sector jobs. Instead, Kansas is ranked 48th of America’s 50 states for job creation.

But the changes did create one important growth area — tax avoidance.

The tax change in Kansas affected so-called “pass-through” entities. In an Australian context, think of the small business, the doctor’s surgery, the accountancy firm, where profits go to the owners.

In a development that you could have seen coming from Balga, a large number of people decided that rather than pay the state income tax (which itself was cut to 3.9 per cent) they reorganised their tax affairs so their “salary” was the tax-free income of the business. Over five years the number doing this grew by 20 per cent.

So problematic has the issue become that the State legislature, controlled by Republicans, over-rode a Brownback veto to increase taxes to help fill the budget hole.

Kansas is a beautiful natural experiment of tax reform. An example of what happens in the real world. Now US President Donald Trump is proposing tax reform with the headlines around the corporate and personal income tax rates.

While much is being made in this country that the Trump plan will leave Australia a “company tax island” with its 30 per cent corporate rate, not much is being said about what the proposals will mean to the US Budget.

At this stage, the best guess is that there’s a $US1.5 trillion shortfall between the tax cuts and the tax increases that are being proposed to help cover its cost.

In recent days there’s been a pushback even among Republicans who have worked out the Trump plan will actually leave up to 30 per cent of the population paying more tax. And that 30 per cent is among middle to lower income-earning Americans, not those at the top.

The richest 0.1 per cent of Americans, based on the current proposal, will share in more than 25 per cent of the gains from the tax reform or the equivalent of $US278,350 each.

That’s just on the budget side of things.

Inside the proposals are plans that would deliver huge benefits to pass-through businesses (like those in Kansas) while exemptions have been made for the real estate industry. Like the one Trump operated in before he became president.

Mr Trump’s heirs would be the biggest winners. America’s existing estate tax would effectively be abolished, delivering huge windfalls to the sons and daughters of America’s richest families.

Critics are fairly declaring the proposals the return of a new Gilded Age to the US. The obvious political issues around the Trump tax plan mean it shouldn’t be taken at face value.

And, as the real world experiment in Kansas shows, any macro-economic modelling of them should also be taken with several grains of salt.

But that hasn’t stopped the Turnbull Government re-engaging on its single biggest tax or economic policy, the plan to cut the nation’s company tax rate to 25 per cent.

Treasury last week released a reheated version of the modelling it did last year on the company tax rate and the “importance” of it to the Australian economy.

It cites, as usual, the shift by a range of nations to lower their corporate tax rates (but fails to mention if they have delivered the promised economic benefits while also not blowing out their budgets).

Some people were enamoured with the claim that fully reducing Australia’s corporate rate, that will cost the Federal Budget about $65 billion, would be offset with a revenue boost worth $30 billion.

Now even my rudimentary mathematics shows that still means a $35 billion hit to the Budget.

And, going back to the original modelling that underpins the Treasury work, you quickly discover it assumed the cost of the company tax cut had to be offset with either very deep spending cuts or an increase in personal income tax.

Neither of those options have been proposed.

The same Treasury paper states that it looks at the likely impact of the US tax cuts on both America and the rest of the world.

But there’s no mention of how such a big hole in the US Budget will be funded or whether it will encourage the sort of tax management so evident in the Kansas example.

In other words, the theory is great. Just don’t ask about the real world. Or the difference between Kansas and Oz.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

Five years on, the Kansas Budget is a mess.

Not because of lower revenue.

"Brownback’s tax cuts were supposed to be the start of a new, small-government approach to growing the economy. And yet lawmakers did little to slow the growth in state spending: The state’s all- funds budget has increased by well over $1 billion since 2013."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-11-13   10:43:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Willie Green (#0)

Well, yes.

Republican tax proposals always stink, and they always end up driving the economy into a ditch. Reagan's did. The tax and regulatory cuts at the start of his presidency ended up leaving us with the largest deficit in history and a crash in 1987, at the end of his Presidency.

W. Bush's did. His big tax and regulatory cuts at the beginning of his Presidency resulted in the Great Recession - really a Depression - at the end of his Presidency, from which we have not yet completely recovered.

What the Congress is debating now will simply do it again.

Cui bono? Who benefits.

Not hard to see in all three cases - the true constituency of the Republican Party: the super rich.

We don't need tax cuts. We need to leave taxes alone while we have spending cuts. That will generate a surplus, which should then be expended on reducing the public debt.

Debt reduction will be geometric, as debt is paid, there is less debt left on which to pay interest, which then accelerates the repayment of the rest.

The United States should leave its tax structure fundamentally intact until the public debt is completely retired.

Then we can adjust taxes in that new reality. Until then, we don't need to be giving the rich another tax break and further exacerbate our budgetary problems. And we need to not let these liars who have buffaloed us into the last two recessions do it a third time.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-13   10:45:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

You sound like Hillary the cunt.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-13   10:54:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Willie Green, y'all (#0)

Sales tax, --- is regressive in that lower income earners spend a far greater proportion of their weekly pay cheque than higher income earners.

This does not have to be so. There could be exemptions for basics, and for all previously used items.

It's been estimated that a national sales tax of aprox 25% on all new products would cover the needs of all fed/state/local govts, programs, etc..

Freed from the total mess of our present tax structure, we could all return to living in an economic republic.

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-13   10:59:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)

You sound like Hillary the cunt.

Really?

You've heard Hillary Clinton speak about cutting outlays and paying off the national debt?

When did she ever say anything remotely like that?

I'll help: never.

I do not sound like a Democrat because - NEWSFLASH! - I'm not one. They never saw a tax they didn't like, or an increase in expenditures they could not justify, and paying off the national debt has never been part of their belief system. There is no Democrat who sounds like me. Never has been.

I don't sound a Republican either. They never saw a tax cut for the rich they didn't like, and they ran the budget deficit up to record heights during Reagan's and W Bush's terms. Obama outdid even them as the spendiest ever, but W is right behind him.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-13   20:00:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Obama outdid even them as the spendiest ever, but W is right behind him.

"war" spending.....

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

"Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -

Jameson  posted on  2017-11-13   20:46:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Republican tax proposals always stink, and they always end up driving the economy into a ditch. Reagan's did. The tax and regulatory cuts at the start of his presidency ended up leaving us with the largest deficit in history and a crash in 1987, at the end of his Presidency.

W. Bush's did. His big tax and regulatory cuts at the beginning of his Presidency resulted in the Great Recession - really a Depression - at the end of his Presidency, from which we have not yet completely recovered.

What the Congress is debating now will simply do it again.

Cui bono? Who benefits.

Not hard to see in all three cases - the true constituency of the Republican Party: the super rich.

Ok I didn't read it all my apologies.

The part I quoted and your last paragraph are as described. The rest of what you said In between is sound and reasonable.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-13   21:56:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#0)

Trump’s direction is a road to ruin

I differ with Trump on many things. To begin with, he has always been too much of a coarse mindless carnival huxter. Having said that, he's still an improvement over Obama and Hillary. We haven't had a man of intelligence, integrity, and distinction as president for five presidencies!

rlk  posted on  2017-11-13   22:46:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: rlk (#8)

We haven't had a man of intelligence, integrity, and distinction as president for five presidencies!

As a Navy nuclear engineer, Jimmy Carter was a man of intelligence, integrity and distinction. Unfortunately, he lacked competence for political leadership.

As President he wasn't stupid, dishonest or disgraceful. He was simply not up to the task of leadership. And he was really unlucky (remember when he was attacked by a rabbit .. ON FILM ... when he was out in a boat in the middle of a pond?

I mean, seriously, the POTUS being attacked by a killer rabbit while he's sitting a few hundred feet offshore. What are the ODDS? And somebody being there with a camera to catch it all...the President fending off a killer rabbit with an oar.

It's as if God said: "Amen I say to thee, thou shalt be a buffoon!"

Still, for his personal character, Carter was a praiseworthy man. Still is. He would have made a fine senior naval officer. But instead he was like the dog who caught the car.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-14   6:45:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited)

I don't know why there should be any comparison between US proposals and Australian proposals. Australia knows the reality of needing tax revenues, we know we cannot live on debt and we cannot allow it to get out of control as the US has. We don't use funny money to fund our economy. We have stepped back from creating another housing bubble with cheap money as the US did through banking regulation. This is not to say there arn't structural problems such as an inflated housing market, but our economy has grown for 47 contiguous periods, despite the GFC and we have done it with both a taxation regime and tax cuts at various times. The more we tax corporations they more they pour into tax avoidance schemes in places like the Caymans, so we make this outflow bear extortinate rates of penalty. I cannot conceive of the stupid ways in which your taxation system works. A system designed so no one actually pays tax but everyone stuffs about trying to cheat the tax man.

We have solution you know, tax income a little less and make everyone pay a goods and services tax. This gets the rich where it hurts because they do spend money and they spend it on lifestyle but for the middle income and poor it doesn't cost that much more

paraclete  posted on  2017-11-14   7:21:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: paraclete (#10)

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, punishing the lower class' ability to pay for life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter & medicines...

The rich get richer & the poor get poorer...

It's better to level the playing field with a tax on capital gains and unearned inheritance income.

Willie Green  posted on  2017-11-14   9:50:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited)

Trump’s direction is a road to ruin

Even more than your choo-choo-train fetish and the Clintons?
Why do you want to find ways for Big Stupid Government parasites to steal more money?

Hank Rearden  posted on  2017-11-14   11:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Hank Rearden (#12)

Big Stupid Government is the lesser of two evils...

Willie Green  posted on  2017-11-14   12:57:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Willie Green (#0)

Aaw, is mean ol' Trump ruining the Leftist dependence on Daddy Goob and the New World Order's "road" to enslavement and fascist?

Boo-Hoo to all you Leftists and your concept of "Utopia." As it is, isn't 666 tattooed on your forehead and your brethren chained up to the gubmint teat with a Starbucks in hand?

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-14   13:11:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Willie Green (#0)

Chyeah. let's all heed the illogic and insanity of the Socialist Aussie Weenie who is not only obsessed with the Wizard of Oz (another self-loathing white homofascist in the woodpile?), but pretends to know all about America OR Kansas.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-14   13:14:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: misterwhite (#1)

"The state’s all- funds budget has increased by well over $1 billion since 2013."

Translation:

The Kansas state goob voted themselves obscene platinum-plated benefits, including golden parachutes at retirement.

THE BIG SECRET: Higher wages and bennies for the biggest employer on the planet, The US state and feral Gubmint and its drones is exactly why ALL taxes are REALLY hiked. NOT because the taxes are spent on infrastructure of anything that actually benefits We The People.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-14   13:20:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Hank Rearden, Willie Green (#12)

("Trump’s direction is a road to ruin")

Even more than your choo-choo-train fetish and the Clintons?

Why do you want to find ways for Big Stupid Government parasites to steal more money?

BINGO! X2.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-14   13:21:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Liberator (#15)

but pretends to know all about America OR Kansas.

In case you don't know the rest of the world doesn't live in ignorance, at least not the ignorance that seems to abound in some parts of the world.

There are economic systems that actually work. Maybe they don't work as well as we would like, but they are not predicated on debt and making future generations pay the bill, nor are they predicated on beggaring your neighbours

paraclete  posted on  2017-11-14   16:48:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Willie Green, Y'ALL (#11)

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, punishing the lower class' ability to pay for life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter & medicines...

The rich get richer & the poor get poorer...

This does not have to be so. There could be exemptions for basics, and for all previously used items.

It's been estimated that a national sales tax of aprox 25% on all new products would cover the needs of all fed/state/local govts, programs, etc..

Freed from the total mess of our present tax structure, we could all return to living in an economic republic.

Naturally, you cowardly ignored my first posting of this.. Got the guts to discuss the issue, willy?

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-14   22:35:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: tpaine (#19)

Why would I want to waste my time?

You're a lame featherweight compared to the NRST "Fair Tax" flying monkeys that infested RimJob's Echo Chamber...

Besides, Trump's Tax Plan will have the same results as Groper Bush's infamous "read my lips."

Willie Green  posted on  2017-11-15   10:05:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tpaine (#19)

It's been estimated that a national sales tax of aprox 25% on all new products would cover the needs of all fed/state/local govts, programs, etc..

When I do the simply math, I get nowhere near that. In 2016, the US retail economy had $5 trillion in sales. Of course, that includes food and things that you would not tax.

If we were to tax the whole retail economy at 25%, we would have $1.25 billion in revenue.

Total spending by federal, state and local government in 2016 was $6.72 trillion.

There is no way to tax the retail economy at any level that will cover government expenditures, because government expenditures exceed the size of the entire retail economy.

If you tax BOTH the retail and WHOLESALE economy, you will have done the equivalent of imposing a VAT. So let's look at that.

The US wholesale trade in 2016 was about $5.9 trillion. So if you hit those sales also at 25%, you would bring in another $1.475 trillion.

So, if you taxed the entirety of wholesale and retail sales in the US at 25%, you would raise about $2.695 trillion, which is only 40% of what you need to fund the government.

And you can be sure that a 25% tax on wholesale would be passed along in the retail price, to be taxed again.

Truth is, all of these schemes for taxing things that avoid taxing accumulated wealth simply will not work, and are not fair. Accumulated wealth is the repository or power, security and new wealth for the wealthy, and that is what must be taxed if you're going to have a fair tax system at levels that do not warp and wreck the economy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-15   10:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Willie Green (#20)

Freed from the total mess of our present tax structure, we could all return to living in an economic republic.

Naturally, you cowardly ignored my first posting of this.. Got the guts to discuss the issue, willy?

Why would I want to waste my time?

You posted this, --- raising the issue, --- now you claim it's a waste of time...

Idiotic response.

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-15   11:18:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Still, for his personal character, Carter was a praiseworthy man. Still is. He would have made a fine senior naval officer.

That's your opinion. I think peanut farmer was the best he was suited for.

rlk  posted on  2017-11-15   11:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#21) (Edited)

if you taxed the entirety of --(all)--- sales in the US at 25%, you would raise about $2.695 trillion, which is only 40% of what you need to fund the government.

Truth is, all of these schemes for taxing things ------- simply will not work, - --

Accumulated wealth ------- is what must be taxed if you're going to have a fair tax system ----

OK, -- if we tax only accumulated wealth, does that mean ordinary basic incomes, enough to live on, (say 15/20K per year per individual) would be exempt?

What percentage then, of the remaining wealth [net worth?] would need to be taxed every year?

Or maybe we could just forget about all taxes on sales/income etc.. -- And file a statement of net worth, pay a percentage and be done with all this bullshit?

Sounds good to simple old me. -- so something must be wrong...

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-15   12:10:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#24)

OK, -- if we tax only accumulated wealth, does that mean ordinary basic incomes, enough to live on, (say 15/20K per year per individual) would be exempt?

What percentage then, of the remaining wealth [net worth?] would need to be taxed every year?

Or maybe we could just forget about all taxes on sales/income etc.. -- And file a statement of net worth, pay a percentage and be done with all this bullshit?

Sounds good to simple old me. -- so something must be wrong...

The second point you made is the correct answer.

Income is a wealth increase. Capital gains are increases of wealth. Interest is a wealth increase. Sales are an exchange of wealth - one form for another form - but there is a profit built into one side of it (or else the exchange would not happen commercially) so that one side has an increase of wealth.

It's ALL wealth. What you own: houses, cars, art, gold, money in the bank. What you earn from work. What you earn from your invested money. The increase in value of your house over time.

Our government costs us roughly $6.72 trillion per year. This is probably too much, and could and should be brought down. But let's hold that expense constant for the moment to decide what the gross wealth tax would have to be.

The gross wealth tax would completely replace ALL OTHER TAXATION. Essentially, income, sales and property taxes are double and triple taxation of the same wealth. A gross wealth tax treats all wealth as wealth, and taxes it once, annually, as an aggregate whole. (Yes, there are timing issues, and asset identification issues - but we don't need to go down into the weeds on this first cut.)

Essentially look at all of the current taxes: corporate income, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, income, capital gains, sales, estate. Zero them out.

We have to get $6.72 trillion out of the gross national wealth to pay for the cost of government at all levels.

There are two ways we can look at it. One is to look at what the Gross National Wealth is, and attach a tax rate to that that will pay the expenses. The problem with that is that Gross National Wealth is not a number that is routinely calculated, so you get considerable variation in the estimates.

The other thing you can do is look at the amount of money we need, and then calculate what the GNW would need to be at certain percentages to pay for it.

If, for example, the tax were fixed at 1%, then if the gross national wealth were $100 trillion, that would bring in $1 trillion, which is not enough to run the government.

In fact, the Gross National Wealth would need to be $672 trillion to be able to tax it all at only 1%.

At 2%, the GNW would need to be $336 trillion.

At 3%, the GNW would need to be $224 trillion.

At 4%, GNW would have to be at least $168 trillion to pay for government.

According to the Bank of Italy, the NET national wealth of the USA in 2016 was $84.784 trillion. But of course the NET number is the gross national wealth (money, securities, real estate, natural resource assets, etc.) MINUS debt.

So, we need to get a figure for the gross debt of the USA and add it to this number to get an approximation of the Gross national wealth.

As of 2014 (I am doing this on the fly, back of the envelope, and that is the closest number I could easily find) the Gross national debt (public and private) of the United States is $60 billion.

So, the total gross wealth of the United States found by combining the 2016 number for net assets, and the 2014 number for gross debt is somewhere around $185 trillion. So, to get $6.72 trillion out of a total gross wealth of $185 trillion would require a gross wealth tax of about 3.63%.

Median household income in the USA in 2016 was $59,359. The median NET household worth in the USA in 2016 was $97,300. I cannot easily find a figure for MEDIAN household debt. The AVERAGE household debt in 2016 was $90,000.

So, the latter two numbers would combine to make an approximate gross household wealth of $187,300.

Applying a 3.63% tax rate - with ZERO deductions or exemptions for any purpose whatever, no exceptions - would produce a Gross Wealth Tax for that family of $6799, which is approximately 11.45% of gross family income.

For most median income families, who already pay Social Security and Medicare tax of 7.25% of their gross income, and also pays income tax at the federal and state level, plus property tax and gasoline and sales taxes, this would represent a very substantial tax cut. The average American family pays $16,027 per year in total taxes, which is about 27% of their income, or 8.55% of their gross wealth.

On the other hand, the rich would definitely pay more than they currently do. Warren Buffett's estimated taxes (mostly capital gains), amount to about $400 million per year. His estimated wealth is $69 billion. (He takes a salary of $100,000 per year from his company.) Currently, Buffet pays about one half of one percent (0.5%) of his wealth as taxes each year. His taxes would go up to 3.63% of his wealth, which would STILL be about 2/3rds less than the average Americans already pay.

The current tax code is monstrously unfair and lopsided. A flat gross wealth tax would be the fairest system, as it would tax every dollar of wealth at the exact same percentage - no matter who owned it or how it was held.

Now, naturally, the rich would scream bloody murder, and the Republicans would move vigorously to stop any such tax structure. They would claim that the rich are being ATTACKED. But in truth, all that this code would do would be to REDUCE the HUGE disparity between the percentage of wealth that working people pay as taxes, and that rich people do. It would be fair, and it would not be particularly burdensome on anybody. For Warren Buffett or any other billionaire to scream that a 3.63% gross wealth tax was a crushing burden, when the general public already pays the equivalent of 8.55%, would be the height of self-serving hypocrisy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-15   13:46:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13, y'all, gatlin, grandisland, misterwhite, all you govt tax buffs.. (#25)

--- maybe we could just forget about all taxes on sales/income etc.. -- And file a statement of net worth, pay a percentage and be done with all this bullshit?

The second point you made is the correct answer. ---- The current tax code is monstrously unfair and lopsided. A flat gross wealth tax would be the fairest system, as it would tax every dollar of wealth at the exact same percentage - no matter who owned it or how it was held.

And you claim that an aprox 4% gross wealth tax (on both individuals and corporations/businesses) would cover all existing fed/state/local taxes and the programs that those taxes pay for?

Sounds good to me. But let's see what LP's govt defenders have to say... -- Two bits they can't make any rational replies..

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-15   14:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25) (Edited)

I appreciate your analyses and breakdown of our economy and taxation and the painful minutiae.

There are a few metrics to consider that might be getting overlooked.

1) The Elites have ALWAYS controlled the World's wealth.

If we can agree on this maxim, can we also agree that within the American economic model, the Elites have allowed far more people to live in relative luxury? Even much middle class wound up fat, owning 2 or more houses and cars, going on vacation, eating well, and retiring without having to work.

But that's the good news. The bad news is...the Elites are changing things. FAST. (They only used legislators, who do NOT work on our behalf, but on behalf of their overlords. So don't look to McConnell, the NWO puppet and Republicans to help us.)

2) The Fix as been in on crushing the Middle Class since the big Bank Bail-Out.

They elites and our so-called "reps" have purposely allowed the influx of tens of millions of parasitic, third world illegals and Muzzies, draining the native American Middle Class of our wealth, medical services, security, and standard of living as WE are burdened with underwriting the parasites with OUR tax monies.

3) The current Tax Code, and even past tax codes have and will always favor the super-rich, the elites, and globalists.

That is not ever changing. Now that they've crushed the Middle Class, their target is now reducing the number of upper middle class and knocking them off the ladder.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-15   14:56:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: tpaine, Vicomte13, Deckard (#26)

But let's see what LP's govt defenders have to say...

Defenders of gubmint policies more often than not cash in gubmint pay checks and retirement bennies.

The gubmint -- state and feral -- are THE biggest employer on the planet. By design, gubmint employees -- past & present -- support gubmint via this economic monopoly, right or wrong. Of course there are many exception, but this is the general rule. And as a general rule, Gubmint workers generally support DEMOCRATS (which is why Virginia has become a Blue State, and Maryland is already Blue.)

Who can we the people rely on to prevent gubmints from the conflict of interest of giving themselves YUGE raises and retirement bennies that are like hitting the lottery? Ans: NO ONE.

NOTE: School taxes always refer to "The Children." State and feral politicians always claim higher taxes will make citizens "more secure." The truth is, our higher taxes make state and feral workers "more secure" as in FINANCIALLY secure.

MORE TRUTH:

Despite the higher real estate, state, and feral taxation, ALL of us have seen society become a very dangerous proposition. With respect to world "security," our taxes are still paying for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, a military and alphabet agys looking for things to do. If there is nothing to do, THEY START SOMETHING.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-15   15:08:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Liberator (#28)

Defenders of gubmint policies more often than not cash gubmint pay checks

Yup that's the mantra of the lazy.

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

CZ82  posted on  2017-11-15   18:24:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: tpaine (#26)

And you claim that an aprox 4% gross wealth tax (on both individuals and corporations/businesses)

I didn't actually speak of businesses, but yes, any entity that provides shielding from legal liability is a "person" in the eyes of the law, and gets taxed.

Note that this tax structure would strongly DISCOURAGE setting up complicated legal structures to avoid taxation, because the effect of doing so would be to be taxed again and again and again.

Immunity from legal liability should come at a cost, and not be a vehicle for avoiding taxation.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-16   8:35:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

Screw your wealth tax idea. Get rid of social programs and let the church and individuals take care of themselves.

You must not believe Jesus when he said he takes care of the birds and we are much more valuable then the birds...

You obviously don't have faith in what God said.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-16   9:00:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#31)

You must not believe Jesus when he said he takes care of the birds and we are much more valuable then the birds...

You obviously don't have faith in what God said.

I don't think that Jesus means by this what you think he means.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-16   12:59:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: CZ82 (#29)

Yup that's the mantra of the lazy.

"Lazy," truly "privileged," hypocritical, AND worst of all, they are quite willing to sell out America as well as the future -- JUST AS LONG AS SUGAR DADDY BIG GOOB CONTINUES TO BRIBE THEM FOR VOTES WITH OUR MONEY WHILE SELLING THE REST OF US OUT.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-16   13:08:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Vicomte13 (#25) (Edited)

The current tax code is monstrously unfair and lopsided. A flat gross wealth tax would be the fairest system, as it would tax every dollar of wealth at the exact same percentage - no matter who owned it or how it was held.

How then would you adjust gross income for those who are independent contractors, run businesses and have legit write offs?

THE biggest problem with taxation is not that it's patently unfair, but that this nation's middle class is burdened with financially supporting tens of millions of ILLEGAL INVADERS, generational welfare cheats and queens, and Feral and State gubmints that have a BLANK CHECK with which to give the aforementioned parasites who game the system FREE (aka "Taxpayer Financed") money and benefits, while giving themselves insane raises, lucrative salaries, and benefits that are unjustified and unmerited.

In short, we have a bureaucracy that is itself a self-serving giant parasite with ZERO checks & balancing.

Moreover, did you consider the Federal Reserve's part in this fraud?

To counter balance the Feral Gubmint's spending more than it confiscates in taxes, it merely instructs the Feral Reserve to print up MORE fiat paper money, backed by NOTHING.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-16   13:16:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#30)

Immunity from legal liability should come at a cost, and not be a vehicle for avoiding taxation.

I can agree with that logic, fairness, and common sense.

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Liberator  posted on  2017-11-16   13:19:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Liberator (#34)

: Vicomte13 (#25) (Edited) --- The current tax code is monstrously unfair and lopsided. A flat gross wealth tax would be the fairest system, as it would tax every dollar of wealth at the exact same percentage - no matter who owned it or how it was held.

How then would you adjust gross income for those who are independent contractors, run businesses and have legit write offs?

Income would not be taxed under his scheme.

Everyone would be taxed a certain percentage of their wealth, every year. Period. No exemptions...

Everyone (including businesses,_etc) would file a statement showing gross wealth. (and pay aprox 4%)..

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-16   13:55:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Liberator (#34)

Gross income would be taxed as part of wealth, not separately. There would be no writeoffs for anything.

There would also be no other taxes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-16   14:40:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com