OR....we could go the traditional route and CUT government spending to its legal, traditional and constitutional limitations...historically speaking about 3% of the GDP.
And rely primarily on Tariffs and Excises...rather than an immoral form of property taxation.
Abolish the Federal Reserve, restore a Gold/Silver standard...this removes inflation.
Abolish the IRS and 16th Amendment...this removes the income tax.
Phase out Social Security...remove Medicare/Medicaid...cut ALL military personel and establishments in foreign Countries...remove Unemployment and ANY form of Federally funded social program...
Department of Energy, Agriculture, Education...list goes on.
Remove +80% of todays existing Federal government.
@helltrackrider, We need to do ALL of these things....but you did not say how you go about doing any of them. My plan will phase out Social Security and address some of your other suggestions.
Easy...elect Ron Paul...repeal any Laws / Amendments which created these illegal institutions...or, have society nullify them themselves; when noone participates --- the laws will be unenforceable (unfortunately, this will never happen)...so, start by electing true Liberty loving individuals...Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party.
@Niftytax Internet. Software will be done soon. Open source, E-Democracy. It will replace government overnight.
Software will allow any population with internet access to set up any type of government they wish (Oli, Anarcho-Capitalist, Religious, Random Representative, Direct Democratic, Consensus Direct, etcetera.) We can decentralize it, too.
Behavioral Economics, Mesh Theory and Internetz are about to come together. Probably about 2 years, I'd say. Until then, try and elect Ron Paul.
Just getting rid of the Federal Reserve and relying on Constitutional money (Gold and Silver coin) would reign in Government to a somewhat legitimate size...not to mention remove the moral hazards that led to the internet and housing bubbles we have recently been through.
It's better than what's going to happen if we don't change things, but I still don't think it near as effective as the government simply doing what the people can't do for themselves. Retirement, health care, welfare are the kind of things that either we should do for ourselves or our families and communities should help out of their own free will (which, by the way, shouldn't be difficult if people wait till they can afford it to have children or buy crap)
how about everything right now is just fine? all we have to do is stop building other shitty country's and worry about our own country. that sounds like a better plan.
Zimbabwe doesn't print money by borrowing it as we do. They just print it. No promise to pay. No interest payments. No selling of bonds. Just straight up printing. There is a difference.
Well, i applaud your idea and I think that in some form something like this could work. I think it is probably much more difficult (or impossible) to implement than perhaps you want or think. I also think that we're losing each other to some extent with my questions and your responses. But it's great to actually think and come up with your own ideas than to just sit around and complain like most people who are unsatisfied with the gov't do.
To eliminate inflation, you eliminate debt. If you eliminate debt you eliminate 95% of all dollars that currently exist. Do you want the gov't to control our currency or the free market (as it currently does)? I'd prefer the gov't, but then again i'm probably more liberal than you.
I looked at your video.... one of them said "If the proceeds of lending & interest were evenly distributed among the population the problem of banks controlling the money would be solved" My concept will exactly do that. It will spread the wealth to all Americans. It will reduce the national dept, but not individual debt. Individual debt for young people will be funded by retired people and the interest paid to retired people will be spent buying things young people make. Everybody wins!
The government controls our dollar. The value of the dollar is based on the faith that the tax payers will back the dollars spent. When we were on the Gold Standard, our dollar meant something...but when you consider that since Nixon got us off the Gold Standard the value of the dollar is approximately 20% of what it was in 1974. This idea is HORRIBLE!
I suggest that instead of getting angry, you try and get educated. I don't suggest I know everything, in fact i know very little. Maybe you know more than me, i don't know. It's a very complicated world and the deeper you dig the more you realize you don't know. I assume you're very emotionally passionate about what you see as negative in the system by how and what you type. I apologize if this isn't the case.
entro, okay, you seem to have completely missed your own statement....you tell me to get educated, then you tell me that I may know more than you...if you don't know something, don't say it...or research it.
I have written for several mortgage and finance blogs. I am a professional real estate investor, I do know what I'm talking about.
For more information, buy 4 books: Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Cashflow Quadrant, Rich Dad's Guide to Investing, and Conspiracy of the Rich all by Robert Kiyosaki.
4. A flat tax such as this is great if you're rich. But unless you actually reduce the size of gov't, what happens is the poor and middle class bear a larger burden of funding gov't than they do currently.
3. Your model seems to put the states at the mercy of the federal gov't since once they eliminate their state income taxes, they'll be looking to the federal gov't for that revenue replacement.
How about we let the States control how much the federal government gets.That sounds more constitutional..... After the State pays its bills of course!
2. as i understand it, the gov't only gets the principal, while tax payer gets the interest. so, for example, if this year i contrubute 5000.00 dollars, 40 years from now when i die, the gov't gets that 5000.00 only (which will be much less valuable in 40 years), while i lived my retirement in part off of the interest that 5000.00 generated for me.
I have a question for you..... If there is no inflation for lets say 40 years........and we invest your $5000 in the S&P 500 index stock....... what would the $5000 be worth 40 years from now??? Could the "rule of 72" still be used to estimate the value after 40 years? I think it would. What do you think????
To have no inflation, you have to completely reform the monetary system. I don't know how much you know about banking and our monetary system, but that means no more bank loans. A constant money supply would also turn consolidation of wealth into such a big problem that redistribution of wealth through much more progressive tax bracket system would be necessary to avoid absolute poverty. The idea that inflation is completely bad is one of the greatest lies of all time.
I re-read this reply and it looks like you think that the government will only get the principal that is invested in the market. That is wrong! The government gets money that is invested each year PLUS the gains that are generated during the individuals life time. The individual gets to spend the interest ONLY generated by the account (during retirement) until the death of both husband and wife.
Also inflation is good if it is less than 3% each year.
I'm sure something like this could be worked out, but to generalize as best i can my perfective: 'there is no free lunch.' What services we get from our gov't must be paid for. You asked us to imagine what our lives would be like, and on an individual basis, it would be much better. But as a whole would all the extra money in people pockets give them more purchasing power?
What makes a difference is who pays how much and and at what cost. (flat vs. progressive tax, gov't finance expenses)
I don't think that two of our biggest problems are addressed by your system: consolidation of wealth and exponential growth of consumption (or lack there of). In fact it might seem to exacerbate both.
But two things are WRONG! Inflation is greater than 4% currently and the interest on T-Bills (which is the investment vehicle that will pay the interest on the investment) is ZERO! So, let's do the math: 0 x ANYTHING = ZERO! This is Socialism masked as capitalism
Mortgage Backed securities...are you paying attention. These are the TOXIC ASSETS, the Derivatives that caused the housing crisis.
While the "inflation rate" might be at 2.7% for 2009, did you calculate the BILLIONS of dollars of deficit spending our government is doing? What do you think that will do for our dollar? Look up HYPERINFLATION and ZIMBABWE.
As i remember total borrowing in 2009 (including gov't and private) was projected to be down by 300 billion from 2008 as of summer time. Hyper-inflation is not possible in a debt based monetary scheme simply through debt. I'm sorry but its not. As i understand it most 3rd world hyper-inflation has been caused by malicious speculative currency devaluation through short selling and induced panic.
1. Inflation rate might be 2.7%...but what's the value of the dollar PLUS the inflation rate? If inflation's at 2.7 and the dollar has lost 5% of it's value, that's a combined 7.7%. Look up Hyperinflation and Zimbabwe.
2. Mortgage backed securities...you're kidding right? These are the derivatives that are considered toxic assets right now. Mort.-backed sec. are the primary cause of the housing crisis that triggered the global economic problems.
Mortgage backed securities such as GNMA Fund Investor Shares at Vanguard are good investments. What is not a good investment are Credit Default Options (CDO's) these ar the "TOXIC ASSETS" everyone should avoid!!!!!
Not exactly. Most inflation comes from private borrowing from the private banking system. Our gov't works in conjunction with the banking system to maintain our currency's value through various domestic and foreign polices, but to say our gov't controls the dollar is an oversimplification of part of the picture.
Not to mention atbarksdale, do you wonder why with gov't spending up so much for 2009 why there was so much more inflation in 2008? Its private borrowing, not gov't! It's our gov't's inability to put a check on how wall street was able to accelerate borrowing by buying debts that led to this.
Not to mention atbarksdale, going off of hte gold standard in 1974 really only had to due with allowing other central banks to exchange the dollars coming into they're vaults for US gold. We stopped truly backing dollars with gold over 100 years ago.
Also, to say that b/c our dollars aren't backed by gold gives them no value shows a complete misunderstanding of the system. Our dollars are backed by a promise to pay. When you borrow from a bank, you and the bank are creating new money for the economy, and that is backed by your promise to pay it back, so the money is really only as valuable as your promise, which is why we have credit checks. When you pay the loan off, the created money disappears and the money supply shrinks back down.
I agree with you entro666 ... and I disagree with atbarksdale who says that investing in the stock market for retirement instead of paying taxes each year is "Socialism masked as capitalism" Socialism is the government ownership of corporations. (ie. GMC, AIG). I do not think giving the government excess to my retirement balance in the future is any different to their so called right to part of my income each year.
1. My inability to touch my principle balance because I'm restriced to live on the interest alone.
2. The inability for my family to reap the benefits of my years of investing.
You simply do not understand that Socialism is not just gov't ownership of corps. It's MORE gov't control and less control by the people. See 10th Amendment as to why the gov't needs less control than they already have. See "Revolutionary Holocaust"
Try again, entro666. What did I say that was different from what you said. In your example, if a bank no longer has faith in my ability to pay, they foreclose on the loan and call for full payment. If the people (domestic and foreign) loose faith in our government, the dollar drops... The faith of the people in the gov't is the gov't's Cred Rating...and right now, my dog's got better credit.
Read history, a central bank will be the downfall of a democratic republic - see Thomas Jefferson
lol, relax. I don't mean to defend the current monetary scheme, it's unsustainable in the long (and maybe short) term. I just find your information inaccurate and your perspective unnecessarily alarming.
Fortunately, your dog cannot levy taxes and does not play by the same rules as gov't. Looking historically over the past 100 years, our taxes are pretty low, especially in the top tax bracket. There is plenty of capability for us to lower our debt, and begin running a debt free gov't, which i think should be done. If you don't think gov't enforcement of legal tender backed purely by debt gives our dollars any value, you can send all your dollars to me.
1. you seem to have a chicken and the egg problem. income taxes can be eliminated after enough gov't willed accounts have been built up by ppl who have died; however, the building up of these accounts involves people not paying taxes.
2. this essentially seems like a 5% flat tax on income, where gov't is on the losing side of inflation; being that by the time they get the money most of it has been massively devalued. how does that generate more gov't revenue than the current 10%-35% income tax.
#1. Thank you for agreeing that it is possible for this concept to work.(?) Yes there has to be both income taxes and the retirement savings accounts being "willed" to the government after death but the taxes decline as the savings build up over time.
#2. Yes it could be looked at as a "flat tax" but inflation along with merit pay increases and the capital gains of the stock market will compound to give the government more money than income taxes paid annually.
1. the point i'm making is that in order to not completely get rid of gov't income tax revenue, a generation of taxpayers would have to both pay income taxes and will their retirement account principal to the gov't, since once a taxpayer begins their gov't willed ira, they stop paying income taxes until they die.
1.Young people would be allowed to opt out of the retirement part of Social Security (disability would still be provided) and 2.5% of their employment tax would go to their self directed retirement account.
2.Employers would contribute $1,000 to each employee's IRA each year in exchange for a two for one tax credit. This would have the effect of lowering business/corporate tax rates from 25% to 15% which will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and lower the cost of goods and services.
5.Existing Individual Retirement Accounts could be converted to this concept if desired.
6.Social Security retirement benefits would be pro-rated by ratio of years payments were made into the SS system vs. payments into retirement accounts with guarantee that combined retirement income will be equal to or greater than Social Security retirement.
ready2roll, I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you not see the value of the "unused retirement accounts" building up over a 50 year time period? And how the value of the unused retirement accounts will surpass each type of tax on income collected by the IRS? (Year 2050, 2052, 2055 and 2057) Are you saying that my analyses are incorrect? If you are I would encourage you to prove me wrong. It's not hard to do if you know Excel.
You're missing the most important part. If Americans saved money, as in the example, the amount of capital available for investments bearing fruit in the future would largely increase. As savings essentially means that people will spend in the future, precisely what businesses are investing for, there exists a time match. This is as in free markets, banks lower rates as they accumulate larger balance sheets. This is why the current crisis is not over. Investment for the future w/no capital
I was trying to figure out if I could retire or if I had to get another job. My retirement savings was OK if I did not have to pay income taxes. I thought well could we save for retirement without paying taxes and pay our taxes at death? What percentage of our income would we have to save to have a good retirement? Cound we live on the interest only? If the government got the balance in the account after death, would it be more or less than what it gets now with people paying every year?
I then set out to teach myself Excel so that I could test out the concept. The first go-around told me that it could eliminiate federal income taxes. Tthen after seeing how much money the government would get I added State taxes, employment taxes and corporate taxes. The graph is the results of all of those calculations.
NO! It will NOT be managed by any government! I don't know of any program that congress or government has managed without screwing it up. Do you?
All I want is for congress to allow young people to opt out of social security and income taxes in exchange for the value in the retirement account when the owner dies. That's it!
Oh I see, so I would just get a private retirement account and i could just put the my money in there and once I die the government will just take whats left.
The interest generated from the account is yours to spend during retirement then after the death of you and your spouse (if you have one) the balance is "willed" to the government is place of paying taxes every year.
OR....we could go the traditional route and CUT government spending to its legal, traditional and constitutional limitations...historically speaking about 3% of the GDP.
And rely primarily on Tariffs and Excises...rather than an immoral form of property taxation.
helltrackrider 1 year ago
@helltrackrider Ok ...any ideas on how we go about doing what you suggest??
Niftytax 1 year ago
@Niftytax
Abolish the Federal Reserve, restore a Gold/Silver standard...this removes inflation.
Abolish the IRS and 16th Amendment...this removes the income tax.
Phase out Social Security...remove Medicare/Medicaid...cut ALL military personel and establishments in foreign Countries...remove Unemployment and ANY form of Federally funded social program...
Department of Energy, Agriculture, Education...list goes on.
Remove +80% of todays existing Federal government.
helltrackrider 1 year ago
@helltrackrider, We need to do ALL of these things....but you did not say how you go about doing any of them. My plan will phase out Social Security and address some of your other suggestions.
Niftytax 1 year ago
@Niftytax
Easy...elect Ron Paul...repeal any Laws / Amendments which created these illegal institutions...or, have society nullify them themselves; when noone participates --- the laws will be unenforceable (unfortunately, this will never happen)...so, start by electing true Liberty loving individuals...Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party.
helltrackrider 1 year ago
@Niftytax Internet. Software will be done soon. Open source, E-Democracy. It will replace government overnight.
Software will allow any population with internet access to set up any type of government they wish (Oli, Anarcho-Capitalist, Religious, Random Representative, Direct Democratic, Consensus Direct, etcetera.) We can decentralize it, too.
Behavioral Economics, Mesh Theory and Internetz are about to come together. Probably about 2 years, I'd say. Until then, try and elect Ron Paul.
ParrhesiaJoe 10 months ago
@Niftytax
Just getting rid of the Federal Reserve and relying on Constitutional money (Gold and Silver coin) would reign in Government to a somewhat legitimate size...not to mention remove the moral hazards that led to the internet and housing bubbles we have recently been through.
helltrackrider 1 year ago
It's better than what's going to happen if we don't change things, but I still don't think it near as effective as the government simply doing what the people can't do for themselves. Retirement, health care, welfare are the kind of things that either we should do for ourselves or our families and communities should help out of their own free will (which, by the way, shouldn't be difficult if people wait till they can afford it to have children or buy crap)
CoreEnterprises09 2 years ago
how about everything right now is just fine? all we have to do is stop building other shitty country's and worry about our own country. that sounds like a better plan.
kappkids 2 years ago
That's all assuming that people would be responsible with their money.
jinkies59 2 years ago
Zimbabwe doesn't print money by borrowing it as we do. They just print it. No promise to pay. No interest payments. No selling of bonds. Just straight up printing. There is a difference.
entro666 2 years ago
Well, i applaud your idea and I think that in some form something like this could work. I think it is probably much more difficult (or impossible) to implement than perhaps you want or think. I also think that we're losing each other to some extent with my questions and your responses. But it's great to actually think and come up with your own ideas than to just sit around and complain like most people who are unsatisfied with the gov't do.
entro666 2 years ago
watch?v=Eg5N_QSoojw
To eliminate inflation, you eliminate debt. If you eliminate debt you eliminate 95% of all dollars that currently exist. Do you want the gov't to control our currency or the free market (as it currently does)? I'd prefer the gov't, but then again i'm probably more liberal than you.
entro666 2 years ago
I looked at your video.... one of them said "If the proceeds of lending & interest were evenly distributed among the population the problem of banks controlling the money would be solved" My concept will exactly do that. It will spread the wealth to all Americans. It will reduce the national dept, but not individual debt. Individual debt for young people will be funded by retired people and the interest paid to retired people will be spent buying things young people make. Everybody wins!
Niftytax 2 years ago
The government controls our dollar. The value of the dollar is based on the faith that the tax payers will back the dollars spent. When we were on the Gold Standard, our dollar meant something...but when you consider that since Nixon got us off the Gold Standard the value of the dollar is approximately 20% of what it was in 1974. This idea is HORRIBLE!
atbarksdale 2 years ago
I suggest that instead of getting angry, you try and get educated. I don't suggest I know everything, in fact i know very little. Maybe you know more than me, i don't know. It's a very complicated world and the deeper you dig the more you realize you don't know. I assume you're very emotionally passionate about what you see as negative in the system by how and what you type. I apologize if this isn't the case.
entro666 2 years ago
entro, okay, you seem to have completely missed your own statement....you tell me to get educated, then you tell me that I may know more than you...if you don't know something, don't say it...or research it.
I have written for several mortgage and finance blogs. I am a professional real estate investor, I do know what I'm talking about.
For more information, buy 4 books: Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Cashflow Quadrant, Rich Dad's Guide to Investing, and Conspiracy of the Rich all by Robert Kiyosaki.
atbarksdale 2 years ago
4. A flat tax such as this is great if you're rich. But unless you actually reduce the size of gov't, what happens is the poor and middle class bear a larger burden of funding gov't than they do currently.
entro666 2 years ago
3. Your model seems to put the states at the mercy of the federal gov't since once they eliminate their state income taxes, they'll be looking to the federal gov't for that revenue replacement.
entro666 2 years ago
How about we let the States control how much the federal government gets.That sounds more constitutional..... After the State pays its bills of course!
Niftytax 2 years ago
2. as i understand it, the gov't only gets the principal, while tax payer gets the interest. so, for example, if this year i contrubute 5000.00 dollars, 40 years from now when i die, the gov't gets that 5000.00 only (which will be much less valuable in 40 years), while i lived my retirement in part off of the interest that 5000.00 generated for me.
entro666 2 years ago
I have a question for you..... If there is no inflation for lets say 40 years........and we invest your $5000 in the S&P 500 index stock....... what would the $5000 be worth 40 years from now??? Could the "rule of 72" still be used to estimate the value after 40 years? I think it would. What do you think????
Niftytax 2 years ago
To have no inflation, you have to completely reform the monetary system. I don't know how much you know about banking and our monetary system, but that means no more bank loans. A constant money supply would also turn consolidation of wealth into such a big problem that redistribution of wealth through much more progressive tax bracket system would be necessary to avoid absolute poverty. The idea that inflation is completely bad is one of the greatest lies of all time.
entro666 2 years ago
I re-read this reply and it looks like you think that the government will only get the principal that is invested in the market. That is wrong! The government gets money that is invested each year PLUS the gains that are generated during the individuals life time. The individual gets to spend the interest ONLY generated by the account (during retirement) until the death of both husband and wife.
Also inflation is good if it is less than 3% each year.
Niftytax 2 years ago
I'm sure something like this could be worked out, but to generalize as best i can my perfective: 'there is no free lunch.' What services we get from our gov't must be paid for. You asked us to imagine what our lives would be like, and on an individual basis, it would be much better. But as a whole would all the extra money in people pockets give them more purchasing power?
What makes a difference is who pays how much and and at what cost. (flat vs. progressive tax, gov't finance expenses)
entro666 2 years ago
I don't think that two of our biggest problems are addressed by your system: consolidation of wealth and exponential growth of consumption (or lack there of). In fact it might seem to exacerbate both.
entro666 2 years ago
Comment removed
entro666 2 years ago
But two things are WRONG! Inflation is greater than 4% currently and the interest on T-Bills (which is the investment vehicle that will pay the interest on the investment) is ZERO! So, let's do the math: 0 x ANYTHING = ZERO! This is Socialism masked as capitalism
atbarksdale 2 years ago
1. Googled "inflation rate" and found it to be 2.7% for 2009. Highest in 10 years was 3.8% in 2008.
2. Have you ever heard of corporate bonds or mortgage backed securities? Also you can buy government securities that have a 30 year maturity!
Niftytax 2 years ago
Mortgage Backed securities...are you paying attention. These are the TOXIC ASSETS, the Derivatives that caused the housing crisis.
While the "inflation rate" might be at 2.7% for 2009, did you calculate the BILLIONS of dollars of deficit spending our government is doing? What do you think that will do for our dollar? Look up HYPERINFLATION and ZIMBABWE.
atbarksdale 2 years ago
As i remember total borrowing in 2009 (including gov't and private) was projected to be down by 300 billion from 2008 as of summer time. Hyper-inflation is not possible in a debt based monetary scheme simply through debt. I'm sorry but its not. As i understand it most 3rd world hyper-inflation has been caused by malicious speculative currency devaluation through short selling and induced panic.
entro666 2 years ago
1. Inflation rate might be 2.7%...but what's the value of the dollar PLUS the inflation rate? If inflation's at 2.7 and the dollar has lost 5% of it's value, that's a combined 7.7%. Look up Hyperinflation and Zimbabwe.
2. Mortgage backed securities...you're kidding right? These are the derivatives that are considered toxic assets right now. Mort.-backed sec. are the primary cause of the housing crisis that triggered the global economic problems.
atbarksdale 2 years ago
Mortgage backed securities such as GNMA Fund Investor Shares at Vanguard are good investments. What is not a good investment are Credit Default Options (CDO's) these ar the "TOXIC ASSETS" everyone should avoid!!!!!
Niftytax 2 years ago
01/22/2010....... 30 yr T bill = 4.50%
Niftytax 2 years ago
Not exactly. Most inflation comes from private borrowing from the private banking system. Our gov't works in conjunction with the banking system to maintain our currency's value through various domestic and foreign polices, but to say our gov't controls the dollar is an oversimplification of part of the picture.
entro666 2 years ago
Not to mention atbarksdale, do you wonder why with gov't spending up so much for 2009 why there was so much more inflation in 2008? Its private borrowing, not gov't! It's our gov't's inability to put a check on how wall street was able to accelerate borrowing by buying debts that led to this.
entro666 2 years ago
Not to mention atbarksdale, going off of hte gold standard in 1974 really only had to due with allowing other central banks to exchange the dollars coming into they're vaults for US gold. We stopped truly backing dollars with gold over 100 years ago.
entro666 2 years ago
Also, to say that b/c our dollars aren't backed by gold gives them no value shows a complete misunderstanding of the system. Our dollars are backed by a promise to pay. When you borrow from a bank, you and the bank are creating new money for the economy, and that is backed by your promise to pay it back, so the money is really only as valuable as your promise, which is why we have credit checks. When you pay the loan off, the created money disappears and the money supply shrinks back down.
entro666 2 years ago
I agree with you entro666 ... and I disagree with atbarksdale who says that investing in the stock market for retirement instead of paying taxes each year is "Socialism masked as capitalism" Socialism is the government ownership of corporations. (ie. GMC, AIG). I do not think giving the government excess to my retirement balance in the future is any different to their so called right to part of my income each year.
Niftytax 2 years ago
There are 2 primary problems with the NiftyTax:
1. My inability to touch my principle balance because I'm restriced to live on the interest alone.
2. The inability for my family to reap the benefits of my years of investing.
You simply do not understand that Socialism is not just gov't ownership of corps. It's MORE gov't control and less control by the people. See 10th Amendment as to why the gov't needs less control than they already have. See "Revolutionary Holocaust"
atbarksdale 2 years ago
Try again, entro666. What did I say that was different from what you said. In your example, if a bank no longer has faith in my ability to pay, they foreclose on the loan and call for full payment. If the people (domestic and foreign) loose faith in our government, the dollar drops... The faith of the people in the gov't is the gov't's Cred Rating...and right now, my dog's got better credit.
Read history, a central bank will be the downfall of a democratic republic - see Thomas Jefferson
atbarksdale 2 years ago
lol, relax. I don't mean to defend the current monetary scheme, it's unsustainable in the long (and maybe short) term. I just find your information inaccurate and your perspective unnecessarily alarming.
entro666 2 years ago
Fortunately, your dog cannot levy taxes and does not play by the same rules as gov't. Looking historically over the past 100 years, our taxes are pretty low, especially in the top tax bracket. There is plenty of capability for us to lower our debt, and begin running a debt free gov't, which i think should be done. If you don't think gov't enforcement of legal tender backed purely by debt gives our dollars any value, you can send all your dollars to me.
entro666 2 years ago
1. you seem to have a chicken and the egg problem. income taxes can be eliminated after enough gov't willed accounts have been built up by ppl who have died; however, the building up of these accounts involves people not paying taxes.
2. this essentially seems like a 5% flat tax on income, where gov't is on the losing side of inflation; being that by the time they get the money most of it has been massively devalued. how does that generate more gov't revenue than the current 10%-35% income tax.
entro666 2 years ago
#1. Thank you for agreeing that it is possible for this concept to work.(?) Yes there has to be both income taxes and the retirement savings accounts being "willed" to the government after death but the taxes decline as the savings build up over time.
#2. Yes it could be looked at as a "flat tax" but inflation along with merit pay increases and the capital gains of the stock market will compound to give the government more money than income taxes paid annually.
Great comment!
Thank you
Niftytax 2 years ago
1. the point i'm making is that in order to not completely get rid of gov't income tax revenue, a generation of taxpayers would have to both pay income taxes and will their retirement account principal to the gov't, since once a taxpayer begins their gov't willed ira, they stop paying income taxes until they die.
entro666 2 years ago
1.Young people would be allowed to opt out of the retirement part of Social Security (disability would still be provided) and 2.5% of their employment tax would go to their self directed retirement account.
2.Employers would contribute $1,000 to each employee's IRA each year in exchange for a two for one tax credit. This would have the effect of lowering business/corporate tax rates from 25% to 15% which will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and lower the cost of goods and services.
Niftytax 2 years ago
5.Existing Individual Retirement Accounts could be converted to this concept if desired.
6.Social Security retirement benefits would be pro-rated by ratio of years payments were made into the SS system vs. payments into retirement accounts with guarantee that combined retirement income will be equal to or greater than Social Security retirement.
Niftytax 2 years ago
I'm an economist, or at least I'm studying to be one! And none of this made sense nor counted in any major factors into the graph!
ready2roll 2 years ago
ready2roll, I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you not see the value of the "unused retirement accounts" building up over a 50 year time period? And how the value of the unused retirement accounts will surpass each type of tax on income collected by the IRS? (Year 2050, 2052, 2055 and 2057) Are you saying that my analyses are incorrect? If you are I would encourage you to prove me wrong. It's not hard to do if you know Excel.
Thanks for the comment.
Don Lloyd, concept author
Niftytax 2 years ago
You're missing the most important part. If Americans saved money, as in the example, the amount of capital available for investments bearing fruit in the future would largely increase. As savings essentially means that people will spend in the future, precisely what businesses are investing for, there exists a time match. This is as in free markets, banks lower rates as they accumulate larger balance sheets. This is why the current crisis is not over. Investment for the future w/no capital
tirmen8er 2 years ago
Yes Virginia, there is a health care bills, and because of it, were screwed WERE FREAKEN SCREWED!!!!! WHATSNEXT WHATSNEXT WHATSNEXT!?
sideslide23 2 years ago
This is a good idea where did you get this by the way?
poppin139 2 years ago
I was trying to figure out if I could retire or if I had to get another job. My retirement savings was OK if I did not have to pay income taxes. I thought well could we save for retirement without paying taxes and pay our taxes at death? What percentage of our income would we have to save to have a good retirement? Cound we live on the interest only? If the government got the balance in the account after death, would it be more or less than what it gets now with people paying every year?
Niftytax 2 years ago
I then set out to teach myself Excel so that I could test out the concept. The first go-around told me that it could eliminiate federal income taxes. Tthen after seeing how much money the government would get I added State taxes, employment taxes and corporate taxes. The graph is the results of all of those calculations.
Thanks poppin139 for the comment!
Niftytax 2 years ago
So, once I'm 18 and have a job I'd give 5% of my income to my individual retirement account managed by the government?
poppin139 2 years ago
NO! It will NOT be managed by any government! I don't know of any program that congress or government has managed without screwing it up. Do you?
All I want is for congress to allow young people to opt out of social security and income taxes in exchange for the value in the retirement account when the owner dies. That's it!
Niftytax 2 years ago
Oh I see, so I would just get a private retirement account and i could just put the my money in there and once I die the government will just take whats left.
poppin139 2 years ago
The interest generated from the account is yours to spend during retirement then after the death of you and your spouse (if you have one) the balance is "willed" to the government is place of paying taxes every year.
Niftytax 2 years ago
Okay thank you very much this clears it all up for me.
poppin139 2 years ago
Please help me promote this concept for tax reform. email all of your friends and let's see if we can change the way we finance our government.
Thanks!
Niftytax 2 years ago