Analysis of Financial Terrorism in America, by David DeGraw

[Ajax]

How do we do that? 

I just saw an article on Yahoo Finance that said the Pentagon couldn't account for 10 Trillion Dollars.  That's Trillion with a T.  Amazing. 

That just doesn't pass the small taste.  That's like the last 15 years of Defense budgets.  Makes no sense at all

[cbc58]

here's the link:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/budget-buster-pentagon-unable-account-trillions-glain-says-160838112.html

[Native_NM]

here's the link:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/budget-buster-pentagon-unable-account-trillions-glain-says-160838112.html

Now that you post the link, it is clearer.  The Pentagon did not say it could not account for $10 trillion, rather the author of a book [Glain] can't account for it.  That is a huge difference.

"Accounting Problems: You think Enron's accounting was troubled? The Pentagon has very little accountability when it comes to its books. Since first submitting financial accounts in 1991, the Pentagon "has been unable to account for trillions of dollars, well over almost $10 trillion by my own account," says Glain. Conspiracy theorists suggest this is CIA money being laundered through the Pentagon, a claim Glain has some sympathy for."

I have no doubt that there is waste, abuse, and fraud in the system.  It is probably in the billions.  I have a hard time believing $10 trillion is missing or was misappropriated.  That is $500 billion a year over the time period in question.  Not reasonable. 

[dug]

I was wondering when some billionaire nearing the end of his days might come out and admit that their economic class are not paying their fair share. Way to go Warren!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-buffett-tax-idUSTRE77E13V20110815

[fishing_guy]

I was wondering when some billionaire nearing the end of his days might come out and admit that their economic class are not paying their fair share. Way to go Warren!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-buffett-tax-idUSTRE77E13V20110815

There is nothing...I repeat nothing...preventing these people from voluntarily paying "extra" to the government.  I have no doubt that their lawyers will find a way to weasel out of paying what they owe.   If Mr. Buffet feels that he isn't paying enough, he can write the check today, irregardless of what today's tax structure is.
Somehow these "tax the rich" policies have a way of creeping down.  The AMT is one of these.  We missed getting nicked by that by a total of $78...and we are not rich by any means.

[dug]

There is nothing...I repeat nothing...preventing these people from voluntarily paying "extra" to the government.  I have no doubt that their lawyers will find a way to weasel out of paying what they owe.   If Mr. Buffet feels that he isn't paying enough, he can write the check today, irregardless of what today's tax structure is

Though that might be considered admirable it is completely irrelevant to the point.

Somehow these "tax the rich" policies have a way of creeping down.  The AMT is one of these.  We missed getting nicked by that by a total of $78...and we are not rich by any means.

It can only creep down from where it started, which was never at the very top. People like you are getting nicked but the folks in Mr. Buffett's club are not. It's not about "taxing the rich" or redistributing wealth, but rather a fair deal for all. At least for me it is.

[OlJarhead]

I'm late to this one but wanted to be sure when someone claims Warren Buffet pays less 'INCOME' taxes then his secretary they are corrected because he does not.

1.  Capital Gains Tax is not Income Tax.
2.  Unless you are working (don't bring in SCOTUS on this yet either) you aren't earning an income.
3.  If you are earning an income/wage, it is taxed at a certain rate.
4.  There are deductions that all people who file taxes can claim -- some it benefits some it does not.

When Buffet makes these claims he's comparing apples to oranges and should know better.  He's comparing the capital gains tax (which i think should not exist) to an income tax (that is a wage tax) which simply isn't comparable.

Now, if you want to solve the problem, just end the whole 'income tax' thing started by the progressives. 

One thing that bothers me is that people argue various points often vary strongly without actually realizing that they are playing into the entire game for one side or the other.

[OlJarhead]

I might add that the system IMHO is broken but the answer isn't to demonize a certain class of people but rather to fix the problem starting with removing the whole, rather 'un fair' progressive system.

What amazes me is those on the left who claim to want 'fairness' but then want to have a decidedly 'un fair' system of taxation.  Smacks of Animal Farm to me:  All Animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal then others....

Or is that:  All tax payers are created equal but some tax payers are more equal then others.

Simple fix:  remove all deductions, change to a flat tax.

That would at least make the system 'fair' -- but I should not I'm not even in favor of that system but rather returning to no taxes on wages at all and back to taxes on 'income' (SCOTUS found that Income was not 'wages' but rather that which a business earns or an investment earns)....of course few like this because they claim it will only be handed down to them by the businesses...to which I answer:  and it isn't now?

[Ajax]

I have a hard time believing $10 trillion is missing or was misappropriated.  That is $500 billion a year over the time period in question.  Not reasonable. 

I just want to point out that you and I agree about something on a thread about economics.  Wonders will never cease.

[ScottA]

Simple fix:  remove all deductions, change to a flat tax.

Sounds simple but what exactly do you call a deduction? If it cost me $10 to make $20 do I pay tax on $20 or $30?

[OlJarhead]

Sounds simple but what exactly do you call a deduction? If it cost me $10 to make $20 do I pay tax on $20 or $30?

I was referring to individual income taxes (again, something I oppose personally).  So, for example, you can deduct child care, work related expenses, mortgages, etc etc etc....just cut out all of it, make a flat tax and be done with it.

Of course because everyone wants their tax breaks it would never happen 

The problem as I see it is first and foremost the claim that 'the rich do not pay their fair share' to which I often reply:  correct, they pay your fair share too.

After all, one cannot claim that someone else does not pay their fair share when the one making the claim pays ZERO in to begin with.  'Fairness' as defined by those who make this claim is often not what you might find in a Websters.

[ScottA]

I was referring to individual income taxes (again, something I oppose personally).  So, for example, you can deduct child care, work related expenses, mortgages, etc etc etc....just cut out all of it, make a flat tax and be done with it.

That's a fine idea but consider this. Think of an individual as a business. They get a job(sell their services) and get paid much the same way a business sells it's services. So by that logic it stands to reason that anything that person has to spend to do that job is a business expense. Your gas bill to get to and from work is an example of this, another example would be uniforms or special clothes. But IMO this should also include other things. For example, If you had to buy a take out dinner because you had to work late shouldn't part of that be a deduction? How bout if you had to hire someone to mow your lawn because you had to work 80 hours this week? See my point?

[MountainDon]

That's the kind of thinking that has caused the tax code to evolve into the overly complicated overly long monster that it is today.

[ScottA]

So are you of the opinion it should be OK for a business to deduct expenses but not an individual?

[rwanders]

As I see it, there are at least two mistakes being made by posters to this thread:

1.  Trying to analyze tax code provisions in accordance with the usual rules of logic.

Laws or statutes enacted by the government, at any level, federal, state or local are NOT meant to be viewed as a logical construction. They are, instead, arbitrary decisions based only on the balancing of the interests of various constituent groups (often derided as "special interests').

2. Trying to apply the term "fair" to a tax policy debate.

The entire "fairness" debate is an empty rhetorical game played by politicians and others. Commonly known as BS. The term is never defined because tax rates cannot be so defined. Everybody, therefore, gets to toss "fair or fairness" around without fear of being asked to define what "fair" means.(see #1 above)

My advice: Stop the madness!  Quit whining from any viewpoint, right or left, about the "unfairness" of tax laws. They are not enacted because they are "fair"--they are enacted to seize private funds for use by the governments and are the result of a struggle by those who will be giving up the funds to shift as much the burden as possible from them. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it. I know the term is one of those we all learned to throw around very soon after we started talking but, we need to finish growing up---it does not sound good coming from anyone older than 16.

[MountainDon]

In part it depends on the definition of expense.  And a person is not necessarily a business.

An individual person does not get to deduct or expense the cost of gas to get to work, for example. To me that makes complete sense. An individual can choose to live within walking distance, use a subway or bus for a dollar or two or drive 50 miles in a 15 MPG SUV. It's personal choice and there's no reason an individual should have a tax break on that sort of thing.

A business, and the self employed person, needs to spend gas money to get to the job site in many cases. Deducting or expensing that cost also makes complete sense to me.

What it comes down to is that the tax code is too complicated; both personal and corporate.

[Windpower]

[rwanders]

 

Good one!,  Windpower

RW

[Native_NM]

What it comes down to is that the tax code is too complicated; both personal and corporate.

This is a result of political "gerrymandering" from both sides.  Tweak one little section here to appease one group of constituents.  This causes unintended problems in another section.  Tweak that one.  Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.   We have a spaghetti tax code that most CPA's can't unwind.

I'd advocate a 1040-EZ type system that covered anyone making less than $200k or so. Might need to be a little more, maybe a little less.   Simplify the code.  End all the silliness.  Tie the system to the SSA, and address the illegal immigration issue at the same time.