FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 18 Sep 2021, 12:42

All times are UTC

Forum rules

GUESTS AND MEMBERS CAN VOTE AND POST HERE. Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots and stalkers and anti-semites will be deleted and banned without notice. Else, try to be thoughtful, protect your own privacy, don't swear much (makes one appear infantile), but I won't censor. POLICE YOURSELF.

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 18:50 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1846
1. For every employer who increases full-time jobs by 10%, cut his tax RATES by 60%.
2. If 5% increase in full-time jobs, cut his tax RATES by 30%.
3. Maybe lower the percentages for large businesses, or have a longer scale of percentages, but keep at least a 3:1 ratio, because that way you can measure the effect on prices and demand.
4. Once that increase occurs, it has to stay in place for say, 3 years. So too the rates stay down so long as that increase remains. Don't require annual increases. Business cycle is 7 years, so maybe lengthen to 7.
5. Add a line to the Forms 1120, 1040 for the change in full-time employees, to ease calculation/monitoring of the rate cuts. Forms 941 show the number of employees, so should be easy to audit without costing gov't or employee time.

Why this is a good idea:

* Reaganomics was criticized wrongly, but its criticism was that benefits didn't 'trickle down'. (They did, but only 3+ years later, owing to the inflationary economy in which the new policy was passed.) But if you TIE job increases to Tax RATE decreases, then the effect can be MEASURED.

* More jobs means more writeoffs for employers. More income to more people so more taxes paid. So the decrease in RATES is offset by job growth. Obviously not equally, but you have to give it 4 years to run before you can establish the true effect of tax cuts on job growth. Then you can make a more permanent policy later.

* Electorate can understand this rule, and will praise whoever promulgates it. So this can be a bipartisan blessing.

* Helps people get off government dependence, so we can maybe start to pay down our too-big, debt.

* Helps show the effect of taxes on the economy, the effect of jobs on the economy, so that future policymakers and voters, can be better informed.

I understand a lot of tweaking will be needed: yet the root idea of linking tax RATE reductions to increasing jobs, has got to be a good one for either the Dems or the GOP to propose. It would be a measurable thing with little added overhead, if done right. That way we have something quantifiable and directly beneficial, to measure.

Report this post
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 20:07 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
After the first 7 years, a flat income tax should replace the present tax bracket system so that all those in "poverty level" will have to pay tax too. At the same time, if we narrow the path to welfare programs, a flat tax should motivate people to find better jobs.

The company I work for is looking for workers, but no one in the area wants to earn a wage because they'll lose their wellfare benefits. They need motivation, so cut the benefits and tax them.

HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Report this post
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 22:40 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1846
Well, the individual income tax is a separate proposal. I partially agree with flat tax, but none of the current proposals actually REDUCE the tax, but only increase it. Really we should have instead a national sales tax. That encourages savings, and then anyone buying anything is paying tax, including foreign visitors and illegals. No tax forms, either, so you dn't have to keep registering with IRS each year.

The administration overhead savings would be enormous, compared to the horror of compiling income tax returns (and I'd be out of a job, but hey -- my skills have better employments). Sellers already have the infrastructure to collect state sales tax, so the Fed portion can be a tack-on, which the states then forward to the Feds, retaining their control (states' rights). Protects identities, etc. Marvelous idea, so won't ever be seriously considered.

And, you can configure the national sales tax better, for we know the GDP. Lower prices for everyone, so the tax needn't be but say 1% maybe 3%, which is a lot of savings to a lot of people. When there's a recession and the government wants to stimulate the economy, it's far more effective to do it by reducing selected national sales tax rates, than by what we have now.

It's not regressive, because you control how much you buy, whether rich or poor. And you can have a lower sales tax rate on what poor people buy, and a higher one for what rich people buy, like we do now.

Not to mention, that's how it was done for centuries, and when a King or emperor needed to raise money, he allocated a special tax for it, so everyone knew WHY that extra money was being collected. So we could have an extra 1% sales tax nationally just for paying down the debt. Our economy is 19T annually, so we can know just how much debt and interest gets paid off, see?

So a high 5% tax on 19T is 1T, which is the annual income tax revenue collected now. If 15%, that covers all of Social Security and Medicare, too (well, a tad over that). Difference is, people not paying taxes will be, and so the per-person cost is lower, which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.

In fact, that's how you could start it, so as not to disrupt current infrastructure, to test how well it could work. Have it be 1% across the board. Use it to pay some of the interest on the debt (annual interest on our debt is 223B, and 1% of 19T economy is 190B). Then see what happens in a year, at which point the infrastructure will be added so you know costs, too. Then reduce the income taxes, and gradually replace with the sales tax, so people have enough time to find other jobs (for the entire accounting and legal industry would be disrupted, if this is done suddenly).

Cash flow would be better too, as it would be coming in daily, not quarterly.

So of course no one will want it in Washington, for they stay in power only by perpetuating our economic problems.

Report this post
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited