Fair enough. All thing being equal I would prefer private hands to government. But as you have pointed out all things are often not equal. Colorado Springs is an example that comes to mind. I recently read about the city government, which had serious financial problems, turning out like 1/3 of the street lights, and I think, also privatizing certain services. Was it park maintenance? I think perhaps it was. Anyway the new contractor hired many of the old, laid off city employees but paid them less. If I remember correctly, what I read was that the jury was still out regarding whether or not there would be any net savings to the tax payer.
slow down and think a little bit. you will not owe any income tax if you dont make enough income. if you do make enough income you will have no problem paying a precentage.
Agree payroll and excise taxes (gas, cigarettes etc) are regressive, which the link also shows. I was pointing to federal income tax, which I believe, is what the OP was talking about. I had said that in an earlier version of my comment but then edited it out by mistake when I tried to shorten it.
"Keep in mind also that the "threshold" of success seems to creep ever downward " this part is so wrong it almost does not deserve comment but maybe this will help: Why Taxes Arenât as High as They Seem WASHINGTON â When people heard that Mitt Romneyâs federal income tax rate was about 15 percent, the immediate reaction of many was to assume that their own rate was higher. The top marginal rate is 35 percent, after all, and the marginal rate on a couple with $70,000 in taxable income is 25 percent.The truth is that most households probably pay a lower rate than Mr. Romney. It is impossible to know for sure, given that he has yet to release his tax return. What is clear, though, is that a large majority of American households â about two out of three â pays less than 15 percent of income to the federal government, through either income taxes or payroll taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/u...h-and-why-theyre-wrong.html?_r=3&ref=business
Like I said, clearly we don't agree. Have you ever lived in a high income tax state? Yes, if you are retired and have little income, an income tax state may be preferable, though there are programs for people with low incomes with regards to property tax as well, it's not quite like you miss one payment and they throw you out on the street as you keep insisting.
This will be my last response to you because you keep throwing out straw men and bringing up irrelevancies. We were talking about state taxes.
probably a good idea since you are on thin ice. the first thing you have to understand is the government will get the money it needs to run one way or another.
well its the same argument as always. the welloff want whats best for them. the problem is that the majority are not well off. the majority live paycheck to paycheck. for them high property tax taxing schemes leave them vulnerable to having their property seized and being put into the street in economic downturns.
How, exactly, am I not as smart as I think I am? Lehman didn't sell annuities, or, if they did, it was in such a small amount that it wasn't even mentioned in their annual reports. It is somewhat common for investment banks to have small life insurance groups to cater to clients who want to get all of their financial products from one provider, but that's a very, very small slice of the life insurance industry. The vast majority of annuities are sold through captive agents of the life insurers themselves or independent life insurance agents. So, again, what was the total amount of the annuity income stream that Lehman failed to pay out as a result of its bankruptcy? You seem to imply that you have some information on it, since you said "many Lehman annuity holders were wiped out". Well, provide some documentation of the claim. Put up or shut up. No, I don't sell annuities, but I have seen well-researched literature showing they should be a part of everyone's retirement portfolio as longevity insurance. As I recall, the recommendation was that 18% of one's assets should be annuitized.
Are we in Economics? (Checks. We are!) So, let us consider that subject for just a moment: 1 - You want it simple to keep the friction caused from the paperwork you will inevitably need as low as possible. 2 - You want it simple to keep special interests of any sort from being subsidized, and therefore distorting the economy by driving activity in some direction and away from some other direction; any direction. 3 - You want it fair to keep the social contract in place; poor people should not pay more or even the same percent as better off people, and a worker should not pay more than any sort of financier, speculator, or rentier. You can do this through a consumption tax by taxing luxury goods more, and by exempting necessities: food, medicine, clothing, maybe rent. NJ, where I live, exempts the necessities, and therefore succeeds in making its sales tax progressive, something most liberals think is impossible. It's not. As I said before, a progressive tax can be simple, something most conservatives think is an oxymoron: reference both the 1986 law I cited before, and NJ's sales tax. You can, then, have both simplicity and fairness. It's not that hard, it's been done, and it can be done on a national level if one simple thing happens: everyone puts away their egos, which is to say they put away their ideologies, and decides to just plain get it done.