Calling Butthead

[winmutt]

You say we shouldn't tax the businesses because the cost is passed on to the consumer right? If we don't tax the businesses then how do we tax the consumers who buy our products in other countries, especially services for instance? In fact, it seems to me that we should only be taxing goods and businesses.

[Butthead]

who cares who purchased the good and services. more purchases = more revenue = more employees = more employment = more tax revenue

[winmutt]

I care about missed taxes paid by foreigners. Under fair tax how would this work?

[jlcnuke]

I care about missed taxes paid by foreigners. Under fair tax how would this work?

What "missed taxes" would they be? What obligation do people in other countries have to fund our schools, military etc? Tariffs and import duties are allowed in the Constitution. Taxing foreigners though I don't recall being mentioned.

[winmutt]

Tarriffs and goods do not cover services, something the Internet has brought to the entire world. I do like that Fair Tax addresses those who currently do not pay taxes but this seems like a pretty big hole. Believe you me we support their schools and militaries.

[G_MAN]

Tarriffs and goods do not cover services, something the Internet has brought to the entire world. I do like that Fair Tax addresses those who currently do not pay taxes but this seems like a pretty big hole. Believe you me we support their schools and militaries.

And there is one of our biggest problems, we try to "save" the world at our own expense. If we took care of our own FIRST we'd be so much better off.

[winmutt]

And there is one of our biggest problems, we try to "save" the world at our own expense. If we took care of our own FIRST we'd be so much better off.
That is not what I meant. I meant when we purchase from over sees we are paying into their systems.

[Butthead]

again, who cares. if we rid ourselves of corp tax, international biz would be fighting to come here and employ americans.


I care about missed taxes paid by foreigners. Under fair tax how would this work?

[KTM Rider]

But under the current system, foreigners dont pay taxes when we ship them something anyway. I dont understand your question. Hell under the current system, I dont pay tax when I buy something from another state:lol:

[Dan43]

But under the current system, foreigners dont pay taxes when we ship them something anyway. I dont understand your question. Hell under the current system, I dont pay tax when I buy something from another state:lol:You do pay the corporate tax that is embedding into the price of a product reguardless of weather you pay sales tax on it or not. So do foreign customers. That is the tax that winmutt is talking about.

[winmutt]

again, who cares. if we rid ourselves of corp tax, international biz would be fighting to come here and employ americans.
LOL WHUT? I am pretty sure corporate taxes are not the reason American manufacturing has declined.

[Dan43]

LOL WHUT? I am pretty sure corporate taxes are not the reason American manufacturing has declined.I believe that when Dean speaks of business flocking to the US if we abolished the corporate taxes he is speaking of where the business is incoroporated rather than of where they actually build stuff.

[KTM Rider]

You do pay the corporate tax that is embedding into the price of a product reguardless of weather you pay sales tax on it or not. So do foreign customers. That is the tax that winmutt is talking about.

If you are referring to the cost of payroll, etc those same tax revenues could be collected at consumption and anyone who purchases the goods would pay the tax.

[Dan43]

If you are referring to the cost of payroll, etc those same tax revenues could be collected at consumption and anyone who purchases the goods would pay the tax.
winnmut is talking about corporate income taxes. Those are embedded in the cost of a product and under the current system the consumer pays them reguardless of which state or country the consumer resides in.

[winmutt]

I believe that when Dean speaks of business flocking to the US if we abolished the corporate taxes he is speaking of where the business is incoroporated rather than of where they actually build stuff.

So if we have fair tax and do not tax businesses or payroll and foreign companies flock to the US to incorporate but keep their manufacturing elsewhere, how do we benefit?

[Dan43]

So if we have fair tax and do not tax businesses or payroll and foreign companies flock to the US to incorporate but keep their manufacturing elsewhere, how do we benefit?Blue Collar workers won't. Wall Street will make a killing.

[KTM Rider]

So if we have fair tax and do not tax businesses or payroll and foreign companies flock to the US to incorporate but keep their manufacturing elsewhere, how do we benefit?


Blue Collar workers won't. Wall Street will make a killing.

Unless the foreign companies bring their own employees they will:

1)Create jobs for US citizens
2)All spend money here in our economy in the form of consumption, real estate, etc which in turn creates more jobs

...and if under the current system we have in place, the companies were incorporated in a foreign country with foreign manufacturing the US would get nothing in tax revenue. Same as if they incorporated here and produced offshore regardless of their customer base with the fairtax.

[Dan43]

Unless the foreign companies bring their own employees they will:

1)Create jobs for US citizens
2)All spend money here in our economy in the form of consumption, real estate, etc which in turn creates more jobs

...and if under the current system we have in place, the companies were incorporated in a foreign country with foreign manufacturing the US would get nothing in tax revenue. Same as if they incorporated here and produced offshore regardless of their customer base now or with the fairtax.From that statement you seem to have the mindset that incorporating here and creating service jobs to support the corporation can replace an manufacturing and industrial base.

I do not believe that a nation become a world leader with a service based economy. Nor do I believe that a nation that became world leader with an industrial based economy can exchange that for a service based economy and remain a world leader.

[winmutt]

I do not believe that a nation become a world leader with a service based economy. Nor do I believe that a nation that became world leader with an industrial based economy can exchange that for a service based economy and remain a world leader.
We certainly won't be able to be the military leader without a manufacturing and R&D base.

[KTM Rider]

From that statement you seem to have the mindset that incorporating here and creating service jobs to support the corporation can replace an manufacturing and industrial base.

I do not believe that a nation become a world leader with a service based economy. Nor do I believe that a nation that became world leader with an industrial based economy can exchange that for a service based economy and remain a world leader.

From that statement, the only thing that can gleaned from it by someone in this discussion is an answer his question below....


So if we have fair tax and do not tax businesses or payroll and foreign companies flock to the US to incorporate but keep their manufacturing elsewhere, how do we benefit?

If that statement makes you or anyone else think I feel our economy is headed to a service based economy, or could work as one then that is your interpretation. Nowhere did I state that nor do I believe that.

With regards to your statement however I do not only believe but also know that when competing against countries like China on a production level, the USA cannot compete except in very technical areas where high value, low volume products are being made. when it comes to making widgets, our labor laws, our population being unwilling to work at menial pay grades instead of sitting around collecting, the litigiousness of our society and the IRS in its current form are not conducive to being competitive. until we as a country can overcome the "red tape" and everybody's hand being out instead of being willing to pull their own weight, the embedded costs of these behaviors will always make our price points higher than someone like China. the reason IMO is the Chinese population see what it can be like if they are willing to work (like the US has been for a long time) and now with a global economy and technology creating the impossible of 20-30 years ago in the world of communication, data gathering and marketing that same population is working towards that goal. meanwhile, my generation to a degree and the generation(s) that have come behind me have lived ALL their lives in luxury in relative terms and don't know what they have because its all they know and they have no incentive to work hard because they don't know whats it like to live like the people who have lived before them in emerging market countries. until that behavior as well can be corrected, the USA will continue to be winning the race to the bottom and it is correct that if we don't correct our current problems, we will soon no longer be a world power, a military power and unfortunately other countries will consider the USA just the same as the USA now considers many countries when assessing financial or military concerns.....as an also ran or a has been not worthy of a 2nd thought.

[winmutt]

the reason IMO is the Chinese population see what it can be like if they are willing to work (like the US has been for a long time)

So what you are saying is that the socialist market economy that China currently follows is better than our own as far as motivating a market economy while providing a minimalist existence for those who do not participate. I might agree with that. The problem is that people who are receiving handouts are not forced to live in communes and toil on farms.

[KTM Rider]

The problem is that people who are receiving handouts are not forced to live in communes and toil on farms.

Many people in our country who receive handouts shouldnt be getting them. Period. Sadly it is both the American instant gratification mindset and our very system which is being played by these people that is the problem. The systems that are there were put in place to help, in a genuine way, the people who had exhausted their remedies and the vision was that it would be a temporary thing. In the past, most people in this country felt honor in working and paying their debts. There was pride in that. Today much of our society exists with the idea of how much can I get for me, right now and with the least amount of work. That mindset goes all the way to the top....with Goldman Sachs executives and even Obama himself and his silly fast track with no work march of a career to the oval office. Combine those two things, a system designed to help people and people who only want to help themselves without working for it, everything else including what is right be damned, and the result is what we have now.

Greece is in a world of shit. Unlike the US, Greece produces nothing. Also unlike Greece, most of its population is similar to those in our society with their hands out unwilling to work. Combine those two things and you get the current situation in Greece. A country with no money and bunch of bitching citizens who expect everything for nothing. And...now their debt rating is 'Junk". America is on its way if we dont change some things. Our biggest mistake would be adopt to a service based economy because just like a business that is solely serviced based, the people are all you have and unfortunately people can easily be replaced with people from a different company or country. So if we continue to spend money we dont have and continue to allow mfr'ing jobs to given to the Chinese and others we will be the next Greece just a much grander scale.

China is different because as a citizen in China currently there is an incentive to work. Through work, one can have things they have never had before and provide things for their children that they were not provided. There is pride in what they do. Sound familiar? Like our parents or even grandparents depending on your age

The only difference is that many of these workers are working for US companies producing there instead the way it was when US workers took pride in producing US goods in the US for both domestic and international consumption. But with this newfound wealth, these people are now also competing globally for goods and services that primarily the west has been consuming for generations. So the prices are going up even more for us here just as our wages and jobs are diminishing. Its a global power shift. It was bound to happen. Study history and one will see that every great civilization crumbled in the end. Fast food and the iPhone wont change anything for us here.:up:

The mentality of our population and the assimilation of becoming a unified American society again with a common goal (looking out for America), not a bunch of PC fragmented sub groups to identify with, is the only way we could potentially avoid the pitfalls of history and other nations like Greece. Sadly, that will have to happen after the current nancyboy is voted out of office in 2012 because right now our country is in a big holding pattern waiting for the storm to clear. I just hope it does before we get to 'bingo fuel" and have to divert!

[02ep3]

Corporate taxes should be kept low and fair. But abolishing all corporate taxes is not the answer. Corporations are conferred many rights and benefits of that of citizens, they should likewise contribute to the treasury like all citizens are expected to.

Though, to Mutt's point. To abolish US taxes on corporations, we would be missing out on a considerable tax base. Right now, when a US company moves manufacturing to a foreign country, we loose jobs, sure. But a lot of the profit related to that operations remains in the USA. This occurs by either: transfer pricing (a foreign operation is only entitled to a portion of the total profit commensurate with their risk), subpart F income (a controlled foreign corporation must include income in current year taxable income) or eventually a dividend back to the US corporation.

As many people have already stated, a buyer should not and is not taxed on exports. Even in Europe, VAT is not payable by an export buyer.

[Butthead]

based on that (non) logic, i want you to go collect taxes from the 50% of americans who pay no fed taxes so my bill will go down.


Corporate taxes should be kept low and fair. But abolishing all corporate taxes is not the answer. Corporations are conferred many rights and benefits of that of citizens, they should likewise contribute to the treasury like all citizens are expected to.

Though, to Mutt's point. To abolish US taxes on corporations, we would be missing out on a considerable tax base. Right now, when a US company moves manufacturing to a foreign country, we loose jobs, sure. But a lot of the profit related to that operations remains in the USA. This occurs by either: transfer pricing (a foreign operation is only entitled to a portion of the total profit commensurate with their risk), subpart F income (a controlled foreign corporation must include income in current year taxable income) or eventually a dividend back to the US corporation.

As many people have already stated, a buyer should not and is not taxed on exports. Even in Europe, VAT is not payable by an export buyer.

[winmutt]

from the 50% of americans

I call bullshit on that assuming your talking about wage/salary earning Americans.

[Butthead]

not that you have any better facts, but say my number is off 20%. there are still tons of people who pay no fed tax. basically any family with kids who make under 50K pay no fed tax and the fact is many of them get net paid due to the bullshit EITC. so my point is valid.


I call bullshit on that assuming your talking about wage/salary earning Americans.

[winmutt]

basically any family with kids who make under 50K pay no fed tax and the fact is many of them get net paid due to the bullshit EITC.
Source?

[Dan43]

Source?Run the numbers in any tax software program.

[02ep3]

based on that (non) logic, i want you to go collect taxes from the 50% of americans who pay no fed taxes so my bill will go down.

Perhaps you mean to say that those below a certain income threshold should also pay for the rights the receive? If that is your point, we also have the philosophy that those with the ability to pay, should. As in corporate income tax, if you are not profitable, you do not have the ability to pay, you are not taxed. Further, corporate filers are able to deduct nearly all the expenses they incur while individuals are limited in the type of things they are able to deduct. Let's not forget the many credits, accelerated depreciation, etc. that are available to corporations. My point is, there are plenty of corporations who would be comparable to those individuals whose tax credits to pay no income tax.

The other points I make are a fact of life. And you have not responded to these at all.

[Butthead]

yes, everyone should pay some fed tax. and since we individuals already pay the taxes, taxing corporations is duplicitive, abusive, and stupid.


Perhaps you mean to say that those below a certain income threshold should also pay for the rights the receive? If that is your point, we also have the philosophy that those with the ability to pay, should. As in corporate income tax, if you are not profitable, you do not have the ability to pay, you are not taxed. Further, corporate filers are able to deduct nearly all the expenses they incur while individuals are limited in the type of things they are able to deduct. Let's not forget the many credits, accelerated depreciation, etc. that are available to corporations. My point is, there are plenty of corporations who would be comparable to those individuals whose tax credits to pay no income tax.

The other points I make are a fact of life. And you have not responded to these at all.

[Karl Hungus]

not that you have any better facts, but say my number is off 20%. there are still tons of people who pay no fed tax. basically any family with kids who make under 50K pay no fed tax and the fact is many of them get net paid due to the bullshit EITC. so my point is valid.

Preach on. Every family should be paying some taxes. No one should be a net receiver of taxes.

[jlcnuke]

Source?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/15/hodge.non.taxpayers/index.html discusses it. Google search can yield plenty of other articles too if you don't like this one.

[02ep3]

Could it be possible that anyone is a net receiver of taxes? Sure, maybe some get a credit on their federal and/or state income tax. But pile on sales tax, FICA, etc? Likely those families receiving an EITC are still bearing a tax burden that percentage wise is significant.

[Butthead]

with food stamps, tax credits, etc. i bet you can. and what percentage to you is "significant"? i am paying close to 50% or more.


Could it be possible that anyone is a net receiver of taxes? Sure, maybe some get a credit on their federal and/or state income tax. But pile on sales tax, FICA, etc? Likely those families receiving an EITC are still bearing a tax burden that percentage wise is significant.

[impalanar]

Could it be possible that anyone is a net receiver of taxes? Sure, maybe some get a credit on their federal and/or state income tax. But pile on sales tax, FICA, etc? Likely those families receiving an EITC are still bearing a tax burden that percentage wise is significant.

Real world example:

2 incomes
5 kids
No other deductions

$20000 combined income (rounded up)
$3060 total taxes paid (including the employers portion of SS and Med)
$9000 tax refund (Rounded down)

These amounts do not include other forms of public assistance.

[Butthead]

many thanks for the heavy lifting. :)


Real world example:

2 incomes
5 kids
No other deductions

$20000 combined income (rounded up)
$3060 total taxes paid (including the employers portion of SS and Med)
$9000 tax refund (Rounded down)

These amounts do not include other forms of public assistance.

[Spicoli]

Real world example:

2 incomes
5 kids
No other deductions

$20000 combined income (rounded up)
$3060 total taxes paid (including the employers portion of SS and Med)
$9000 tax refund (Rounded down)

These amounts do not include other forms of public assistance.

Simply nauseating

[KTM Rider]

Simply nauseating

While I agree I would also not have any desire to live with 6 other people in one place on 26,000 annually prior to other public assistance. that is not a life.

[Spicoli]

While I agree I would also not have any desire to live with 6 other people in one place on 26,000 annually prior to other public assistance. that is not a life.

Right...Although a fictional example there are plenty of real world. What type of Einstein makes $30K a year and has five kids? Why should producers have to subsidize the lazy and incompetent...

[Butthead]

because to not subsidize would cause social inequality. /liberal hat off


Right...Although a fictional example there are plenty of real world. What type of Einstein makes $30K a year and has five kids? Why should producers have to subsidize the lazy and incompetent...

[impalanar]

Right...Although a fictional example there are plenty of real world. What type of Einstein makes $30K a year and has five kids? Why should producers have to subsidize the lazy and incompetent...

um...that is not a fictional example.

[02ep3]

Real world example:

2 incomes
5 kids
No other deductions

$20000 combined income (rounded up)
$3060 total taxes paid (including the employers portion of SS and Med)
$9000 tax refund (Rounded down)

These amounts do not include other forms of public assistance.

For the sake of argument, let's take this as true. This family would have received a refundable credit on their federal return. My point was that when you consider that they would have consumed their entire income in the year, the amount they pay in sales tax is still a significant portion of their total income. Of course, we all as net fed income tax payers would also pay sales tax. The point is, they don't get off scott free.

taking a step back. A family of 7 pulling in net 26K a year. You realize this is significantly below the 100% poverty level? It's actually 100% poverty for a family size of less than 4. I sometimes wonder what the conservative solution would be?

[02ep3]

because to not subsidize would cause social inequality. /liberal hat off

Personally, I like to think one or two steps down the line. Using the recent example, if you have many people in extreme poverty, they're more likely to resort to crime. If we want to reduce crime, we must reduce extremes of poverty. That's not a bleeding heart sort of way of looking at the world. It simply seeks to alleviate our society's ills by addressing their causes.

I guess the conservative response to this relationship is to build more jails, buy more guns, move further out into the sticks, and dig a bigger moat?

[Spicoli]

For the sake of argument, let's take this as true. This family would have received a refundable credit on their federal return. My point was that when you consider that they would have consumed their entire income in the year, the amount they pay in sales tax is still a significant portion of their total income. Of course, we all as net fed income tax payers would also pay sales tax. The point is, they don't get off scott free.

taking a step back. A family of 7 pulling in net 26K a year. You realize this is significantly below the 100% poverty level? It's actually 100% poverty for a family size of less than 4. I sometimes wonder what the conservative solution would be?

The conversation should be that they should not recieve EOY bonuses paid by other tax payers because they made shytty life decisions, are lazy or both.

[Butthead]

what a crock of shit. a vast majorioty of poor people are not criminals.


Personally, I like to think one or two steps down the line. Using the recent example, if you have many people in extreme poverty, they're more likely to resort to crime. If we want to reduce crime, we must reduce extremes of poverty. That's not a bleeding heart sort of way of looking at the world. It simply seeks to alleviate our society's ills by addressing their causes.

I guess the conservative response to this relationship is to build more jails, buy more guns, move further out into the sticks, and dig a bigger moat?

[KTM Rider]

one too many sociology books for that man

[winmutt]

Real world example:

2 incomes
5 kids
No other deductions

$20000 combined income (rounded up)
$3060 total taxes paid (including the employers portion of SS and Med)
$9000 tax refund (Rounded down)

These amounts do not include other forms of public assistance.

So, correct me if I am wrong, Fairtax would actually be giving them some 4000$ more a year?

[Butthead]

i may be wrong (have not read the book in a while), but i think they would pay no fed tax. the credits would go away.


So, correct me if I am wrong, Fairtax would actually be giving them some 4000$ more a year?

[impalanar]

So, correct me if I am wrong, Fairtax would actually be giving them some 4000$ more a year?

Under the Fairtax cash in hand would have been roughly 27,150 instead of 27,500.

[Dan43]

Try these numbers. 2 parents making minimum wage working full time with 2 dependents under 17.
Total income=30,160
Total Fed Taxes withheld=5,995 (Income Tax, FICA and Medicare)
Total Refund=9,254
The Federal government would have sent them 3,259 more than they paid in total Federal taxes.

What about sales tax you ask?
If they got the same (9,254) refund from last year added to their take home pay of 24,165 they had a MAXIMUM of 33,419 that they might have to pay sales tax on. Total taxes paid (with a 7% sales tax) would be $8,334. The Federal government would have refunded them the entire amount withheld for the year, PLUS sent them enough to cover their entire sales tax obligation AND given then ANOTHER 920 on top of that.

This assumes that the parents do not claim any housing, education or child care credits. Their refund could be larger that this.

[Butthead]

and they get the credit for the social security payments even thought they did not really pay them. this also does not count other g'ment
assistance.


Try these numbers. 2 parents making minimum wage working full time with 2 dependents under 17.
Total income=30,160
Total Fed Taxes withheld=5,995 (Income Tax, FICA and Medicare)
Total Refund=9,254
The Federal government would have sent them 3,259 more than they paid in total Federal taxes.

What about sales tax you ask?
If they got the same (9,254) refund from last year added to their take home pay of 24,165 they had a MAXIMUM of 33,419 that they might have to pay sales tax on. Total taxes paid (with a 7% sales tax) would be $8,334. The Federal government would have refunded them the entire amount withheld for the year, PLUS sent them enough to cover their entire sales tax obligation AND given then ANOTHER 920 on top of that.

This assumes that the parents do not claim any housing, education or child care credits. Their refund could be larger that this.

[impalanar]

For the sake of argument, let's take this as true. This family would have received a refundable credit on their federal return. My point was that when you consider that they would have consumed their entire income in the year, the amount they pay in sales tax is still a significant portion of their total income. Of course, we all as net fed income tax payers would also pay sales tax. The point is, they don't get off scott free.

taking a step back. A family of 7 pulling in net 26K a year. You realize this is significantly below the 100% poverty level? It's actually 100% poverty for a family size of less than 4. I sometimes wonder what the conservative solution would be?

They actually netted 27,500 (half of SS and MED is not part of the 20k.) Poverty threshold for a family of 7 is 32,108. That 5k is easily made up in foodstamps alone.

Let me be really clear, this is real world. I know these people.

[Butthead]

since you know these people, can you give us a flavor of their life? is the man holding them down? are they mentally challenged? bad parents?
bad environment? what they do if they fed cut them off? are they underperforming? lazy?


Let me be really clear, this is real world. I know these people.

[winmutt]

Under the Fairtax cash in hand would have been roughly 27,150 instead of 27,500.

Under fair tax wouldnt they have received 10k exemption on goods? Making their income 30k? Maybe I am misremembering, does everyone get the 10k exemption?

[jlcnuke]

since you know these people, can you give us a flavor of their life? is the man holding them down? are they mentally challenged? bad parents?
bad environment? what they do if they fed cut them off? are they underperforming? lazy?

I would say at a minimum anyone who chooses to have and raise 2 kids in poverty is either mentally challenged, ignorant or selfish. Either they can't comprehend the costs of raising a child, they are ignorant of the costs of raising a child or they don't care because they want a child. Had this discussion with my sister not too long ago, she's married and wanted to start a family. That's fine and dandy and she makes a decent salary and her husband has an income also but when she asked for help on her budget and I found about $200 left over per month after paying bills, mortgage, school loans etc it became pretty clear that they should wait until they were more financially secure and could provide a decent life for a child.

[impalanar]

Under fair tax wouldnt they have received 10k exemption on goods? Making their income 30k? Maybe I am misremembering, does everyone get the 10k exemption?

Under the Fairtax you get a prebate of the amount you would pay in tax on spending to the poverty threshold. For 7 it is 32,108 * 23% = 7384.84...hmm, my original math was off by a few hundo.

[impalanar]

since you know these people, can you give us a flavor of their life? is the man holding them down? are they mentally challenged? bad parents?
bad environment? what they do if they fed cut them off? are they underperforming? lazy?

A combination of underperforming and lazy.

[02ep3]

They actually netted 27,500 (half of SS and MED is not part of the 20k.) Poverty threshold for a family of 7 is 32,108. That 5k is easily made up in foodstamps alone.

Let me be really clear, this is real world. I know these people.

so they make less than the 100% poverty line. Then, you agree with me? But now we're just being pedantic.

[02ep3]

what a crock of shit. a vast majorioty of poor people are not criminals.

Yes, this is true. But you can't deny that the vast majority of people who commit crimes are what we would consider to be "poor." This is my point.

Or maybe it's just a coincidence that the rough parts of town have the highest rates of crime? Do you catch many stray bullets in Alpharetta? Or is your head so crammed in your own crock of shit that you can't see such simple relationships? If so, allow me to suggest some light reading for you: Freakanomics, Chapter 4. You might want to wash up before reading it. The public library doesn't appreciate crap stains on their books.

[KTM Rider]

02ep3:

What makes high crime rates?

The police enforcing the law or people breaking it?

[02ep3]

Is this a trick question?

My first response would be that there is a certain frequency of illegal acts, which I would call crime, that occurs in a given jurisdiction.

But maybe your question is that if there is a larger law enforcement presence, a higher crime rate can be expected because more crime will be reported. If this is the case, I'll go back to my Alpharetta example. Do we really believe that there is a lot of crime going unreported in Alpharetta? And if the claim is that the frequency of crime between alpharetta and south Atlanta are similar it's just a difference between the enforcement of laws in one place or another, i suggest to pick up and buy a house in south side. The property is a bargain and it's more convenient to the airport.

[impalanar]

so they make less than the 100% poverty line. Then, you agree with me? But now we're just being pedantic.

I agree that they are below the poverty threshold through no ones fault but their own and that it is not the governments place to subsidize their choices.

[KTM Rider]

Is this a trick question?

My first response would be that there is a certain frequency of illegal acts, which I would call crime, that occurs in a given jurisdiction.

But maybe your question is that if there is a larger law enforcement presence, a higher crime rate can be expected because more crime will be reported. If this is the case, I'll go back to my Alpharetta example. Do we really believe that there is a lot of crime going unreported in Alpharetta? And if the claim is that the frequency of crime between alpharetta and south Atlanta are similar it's just a difference between the enforcement of laws in one place or another, i suggest to pick up and buy a house in south side. The property is a bargain and it's more convenient to the airport.

Doesnt matter what I believe because to interject beliefs it to interject bias. Since you want to talk about crime rates which are statistics then we cannot interject bias.

From a purely sociological perspective, a higher LEO presence in ANY jurisdiction will increase the rate of crime in that jurisdiction. It is a fact. Cops see things and write tickets/ make arrests for those things. Fewer cops means fewer tickets/ arrests. How many speeding tickets would be issued on the connector tomorrow between 9am and 10am if NO cops were out during that time? My guess is zero.

Of course in an area where complaints are made LEO presence will increase. That is a typical and smart reaction. That reaction however creates an even higher "rate" of crime. Since any municipality, county, city, state etc cannot afford to both increase patrols in one area without pulling resources in another, the end result across the whole jurisdiction is the perception that crime is higher in one area than the other due to the higher number of crime statistics. I suspect, to take your example of Alpharetta, that if the Alpharetta PD were to reallocate resources to areas where crime is perceived to be low while pulling those resources from areas where crime is perceived to be high, the trend statistical data over a year or more would change and show the crime rates shifting. The crimes would of course be different as would the demographics of the offenders but the crime rates would increase in your nice areas and decrease in others so to solely rely upon crime rate data in order to support your point that the poor are more likely to commit crime than the non poor is misleading.

While I would agree that I would rather live next to a pot grower in his basement in Alpharetta than a murderer in east ATL, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the poor are more likely to commit crimes just because they get caught for it or due to the nature of their crimes. Criminals are everywhere.

As for moving to the south side....I have no genuine reason to do so. I dont transit the airport frequently and my job is on the north side as are my family and my cabin is closer.

[02ep3]

So what is this? The uncertainty principle of law enforcement? It might be fun to think that law enforcement is akin to quantum mechanics but, I'm not about to believe that if I don't want my house to be robbed, I'll make sure that there are no cops in my neighbourhood. Sure, if no cops were on the connector tomorrow morning, no tickets would be written. But does that mean no one will speed?

That's why I suspected your question was a trick. The recorded statistics might be skewed for certain crimes depending on the level of law enforcement. But that doesn't skew the locations where crimes occur. So if a house is broken into how does patrol's effect that rate of crime in a locality? What about murders, are cops under-reporting the murders in alpharetta? I'm trying hard not to believe you're being disingenuous, but do you really believe that the applebees in Alpharetta has the same chance of being stook up that the Checkers on south side has?

[KTM Rider]

You said "poor people are more likely to resort to crime". Unless you are able to prove every time a crime occurs and know the offender's financial status, the only way to draw that conclusion is from crime rate data. Crime rate data is flawed therefore so is your claim since you are not God and cant know every time a crime is committed.

You know why they only show people getting caught on the TV show COPS? Because either the police didnt know about the crime taking place or because it would be counterproductive to show the ones who got away. Plenty of people commit crime all the time. It may be petty and less serious than other crimes but everyone does.

I could technically call your claim BS solely because poor people generally dont drive as much as non poor people and drivers typically speed. Speeding is a crime. So I could, with facts similar to your crime rate data that support your claim, make the claim that in fact non poor people are more inclined to commit crime than the poor and do so more frequently!! Of course that is "silly" or "irrelavant" or "XXXX" but the reality is the data that generate crime rates is only to be understood for trend information not absolute numbers and many crimes go unreported, even by the victims.

Also dont forget that crime rate data is simply based off arrests....not the disposition of the case.

I cant answer a question about the statistically likelihood of Checkers on the south side being robbed compared to the Applebees in Alpharetta for multiple reasons. Alpharetta probably has more than 1 Applebees so I dont know which one "the" is and "the south side" is pretty big. I am sure there are plenty of places on "the south side" that just as safe or safer than the safest place in Alpharetta and I am also sure the Alpharetta PD could point you in the direction of a place you wouldnt want to be alone in the dark. You thinking "the south side Checkers" has more of a chance of being "stook up" is probably a bias within your own mind for whatever reason that has you predetermined to think the way you do. Besides from a purely tactical perspective, sticking up a Checkers would be stupid because you cant get inside those establishments usually so it probably unlikely at all regardless of location.

[02ep3]

I give up

[jlcnuke]

http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/povertycrime.php pretty good study on the relationship between poverty and crime with detailed breakdown and analysis as well as evaluation of other factors

[KTM Rider]

I give up

Look Alpharetta must have shifted their police coverage to help the poor in ATL deal with their high crime rates!!:lol:

http://wsbradio.com/localnews/2010/06/alpharetta-car-breakins-spike.html

[02ep3]

A jump in crime during the summer!? The hell you say! This must certainly be because police are stepping up patrols increasing the rate at which they are reporting crime. Not because of some other underlying cause.:doh:

[KTM Rider]

It could be that the kids are poor too but I doubt that :lol:

[Jector]

I love how the sociologists always insinuate that poverty causes crime so if we take the poverty away criminals will vanish. Anyone done any legwork on whether or not having a criminal mindset (wanting an easy fix, ie; being too lazy to work harder for what they want) causes the financial difficulties instead?

02ep3; how much money do you think we'll have to give to people who want things for free to satisfy them? How many of them will want more once they get used to the money we're giving them? What signal are we sending to the lazy and criminal if we start giving them money they don't earn? If you want to help the impoverished you need to work on giving them jobs and the desire to work. A hand up, not a hand out.

[02ep3]

I never said we could eliminate crime. Only that certain causes or elements that encourage crime could be reduced thereby reducing crime.

As far as the mechanism to reduce the such elements, like poverty, I agree that providing opportunity e.g., jobs is the best way to go. I say "opportunity" because access to a good education and healthcare is also important. The idea is basically, if someone has gainful employment and can provide from him/herself and their family, then they are less likely to engage in criminal activities either because A) they do not have an economic need that they can't meet on their own and B) their current, desirable lifestyle would be put in jeopardy by engaging in criminal activities.

In the scope of taxes, which is the subject of this thread, a progressive tax system is important to reduce crime as it reduces the number of people who may be depressed into scenarios A or B. When it comes to refundable credits like the EITC, the example which was given by Impalanar is good, where a family is beyond the federal poverty standards. I think it's reasonable to agree that such a person has a higher probability of being in scenario A or B than someone who makes $150K a year. Lower taxes on the marginally poor isn't the only answer, no if ands or buts about it. But it certainly won't help by burdening a family with a tax liability when they can't even provide for their own basic needs for survival.

You may say, screw such people, it's their fault for being in such a situation. Well fine. But I know that I don't want to be car jacked when I drive down the street. I think it's important that we create a society where we produce LESS carjackers than more. And maybe that makes me a "liberal." I guess the "conservative" answer would be to just carry a bigger gun?

[Hammerhead]

But I know that I don't want to be car jacked when I drive down the street. I think it's important that we create a society where we produce LESS carjackers than more. And maybe that makes me a "liberal." I guess the "conservative" answer would be to just carry a bigger gun?

You think people jack cars because they're hungry? :crackup:

[Jector]

I would like to see some actual numbers but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say a majority of people who commit violent or potentially violent crimes are not going to be seriously impacted by a more lenient tax structure because they won't be gainfully employed in the first place. People who are gainfully employed are going to be a bit busy working to normally go out and cause trouble in Will's neighborhood. Granted a few of the employed can be eventually pushed to serious crimes to make ends meet, but normally crimes are a tactic of the as opposed to the needy. Throwing money at the poor will likely not seriously impact crime.

Mind you, I'm fine with tax breaks to the seriously impoverished, it's the tax credits that I think are a bad thing. It produces too many scenarios of thoughts of entitlement and decreases the impetus to try to better oneself.

[Karl Hungus]

I think people steal cars because they've always wanted one in that color and with that option package, but they couldn't get off work to go shopping.

[KTM Rider]

I think people steal cars because they've always wanted one in that color and with that option package, but they couldn't get off work to go shopping.

:rofl:

[02ep3]

You think people jack cars because they're hungry? :crackup:

Of course! You ever try to walk up to the drive-thru at Arby's? They won't serve you.

[KTM Rider]

Of course! You ever try to walk up to the drive-thru at Arby's? They won't serve you.

:rofl:

I saw a walk thru once in Anchorage at about midnight....it was still light out too. Between seeing that, the light, the clock and the jetlag from just coming in I was slightly disoriented.:lol:

[jlcnuke]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/21/smallbusiness/1099_deluge/index.htm more taxes to the tune of almost $350 billion annually and an increase in costs for small businesses to file taxes of around $6k+ per year. Great system we got here...

[02ep3]

I don't understand. You have a probelm with people paying taxes which they owe under the existing tax code? Because that's what that 350B estimate is. It's not a tax hike, but giving the IRS the ability to more effectively collect taxes owed. Or are you a fan of tax cheats?

[MONICA]

This is the part that I have a problem with. It's just way overboard and ridiculous.....

The 1099 changes attached to the health care reform bill are another kettle of fish. These massively expand the requirements for filing the "1099-Misc" form, which companies use for recording payments to freelance workers and other individual service providers. Until now, payments to corporations have been exempt from 1099 rules, as have payments for the purchase of goods.

Starting in 2012, that changes. All business payments or purchases that exceed $600 in a calendar year will need to be accompanied by a 1099 filing. That means obtaining the taxpayer ID number of the individual or corporation you're making the payment to -- even if it's a giant retailer like Staples or Best Buy -- at the time of the transaction, or else facing IRS penalties.
In essence, the 1099-Misc is having its role changed from a form for tracking off-payroll employment to one that must accompany virtually any sizeable business transaction.
"Just with business travel it would include hotels, rental cars," Henschke says. "Phone service: 1099. Computer service: 1099. Whoever does your postage meter: 1099. You do a little advertising, Yellow Pages: 1099. Your landlord: 1099. You might as well just keep them in your pocket and hand them out as you go around every day."

[impalanar]

I don't understand. You have a probelm with people paying taxes which they owe under the existing tax code? Because that's what that 350B estimate is. It's not a tax hike, but giving the IRS the ability to more effectively collect taxes owed. Or are you a fan of tax cheats?

That is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. If I read that correctly, if my company spends $600 at Staples the we have to 1099 them and do the same for every vendor of goods that we buy.


Henschke's group had previously surveyed its members and learned that they average 10 filings a year of 1099 forms, each of which takes about half an hour to prepare. That's in line with the GAO report, which found that a typical small business spent between three and five hours per year filing 1099s.

But SMC's survey found that extending 1099s just to services purchased from corporations would push that number to at least 200 filings per year for a typical small business -- adding an estimated $6,000 to the cost of preparing the average tax return. And that's without even accounting for the requirement that 1099s be filed for purchases of goods, a provision that Henschke's group didn't see coming when it conducted its survey last year.

[02ep3]

Yeah, it's a lot of additional paperwork. No doubt, but charecterising it as a tax increase is not proper.

Come on people, we can read the writing on the wall. VAT is coming. Much of the rest of the world has it already. This sort of reporting is right in line with VAT reporting requirements.

[KTM Rider]

but charecterising it as a tax increase is not proper.


How so?

Would taxes be due under the current system if the same $600 transaction were to occur?

[impalanar]

Yeah, it's a lot of additional paperwork. No doubt, but charecterising it as a tax increase is not proper.

Come on people, we can read the writing on the wall. VAT is coming. Much of the rest of the world has it already. This sort of reporting is right in line with VAT reporting requirements.

Much of the rest of the world is in worse shape than we are.