Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 True, I hadn't really thought about CVLI, which would likely go the way of the dodo. However it would also likely increase sales of term. CVLI would not go away. There are policies out there that have living benefits built in (Terminal, Chronic, Critical Illness) that would still make permanent insurance attractive. And though the CV would lose it's tax free advantage it would still play a role in people who want, or need, a non-correlated asset that's paying a decent interest rate.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 CVLI would not go away. There are policies out there that have living benefits built in (Terminal, Chronic, Critical Illness) that would still make permanent insurance attractive. And though the CV would lose it's tax free advantage it would still play a role in people who want, or need, a non-correlated asset that's paying a decent interest rate. You don't think LTC products would fill that gap?
Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 You don't think LTC products would fill that gap? That's a tough market too. Very expensive because the risk is hard to price and the players are shrinking. And you may put a boatload of money into LTC and never use it. Now there are return of premium LTC but that's pricey too. CVLI will be used one way or another. You'll die, have a DB accelerating event while living, use the cash or any combination of those. And they will continue to play a roll in estate and legacy planning. So they won't go away just positioned a little differently. I'm not sure how many are covering the tax free income angle to begin with.
Adam Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/ Since we are already running deficits and this plan by a "populist" supposedly evens the playing field, will it be revenue neutral or will we average Americans have to pay more to make up for the tax cut for the wealthy this will represent?* If it is to be accompanied by firing government workers and increasing unemployment, how many will lose their jobs? I see he is already planning to pay for this in part by taking away poor people's health insurance *Wealthy people are defined as those in the higher tax brackets that will be eliminated under the Cruz plan. eliminated?
Nanker Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Obama's Flat Tax Plan How much did you make last year? Send it in, thousands of people need your money.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 That's a tough market too. Very expensive because the risk is hard to price and the players are shrinking. And you may put a boatload of money into LTC and never use it. Now there are return of premium LTC but that's pricey too. CVLI will be used one way or another. You'll die, have a DB accelerating event while living, use the cash or any combination of those. And they will continue to play a roll in estate and legacy planning. So they won't go away just positioned a little differently. I'm not sure how many are covering the tax free income angle to begin with. Very interesting. I appreciate the information.
/dev/null Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Obama's Flat Tax Plan How much did you make last year? Send it in, thousands of people need your money.
reddogblitz Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Any consumption tax would have to be progressive. Expensive items would have to have higher tax rates to preserve the concept of the rich paying more and even more than more. If implemented as I've seen proposals, progressive rates wouldn't be needed. We would first figure out a number where poor people wouldn't have to pay taxes on purchases. Let's say $20,000. Then we take our tax rate, let's say 25% to make it easy. So, 25% or $20,000 is $4,000. So on April 15th every year, each adult gets a check for $4,000 to pay for their taxes under $20,000. So a poor person who spends less than $20,000 pays ZERO taxes. The rate would have to be higher for everyone, but the poor would not be railroaded as allegedly happens now.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 If implemented as I've seen proposals, progressive rates wouldn't be needed. We would first figure out a number where poor people wouldn't have to pay taxes on purchases. Let's say $20,000. Then we take our tax rate, let's say 25% to make it easy. So, 25% or $20,000 is $4,000. So on April 15th every year, each adult gets a check for $4,000 to pay for their taxes under $20,000. So a poor person who spends less than $20,000 pays ZERO taxes. The rate would have to be higher for everyone, but the poor would not be railroaded as allegedly happens now. Or you make certain purchases (food) tax exempt.
Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I would really love a consumption tax. With the way this cheap bastard spends money I'd be rolling in the dough.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) I'm sure there are always many things that stand to be improved and therefore should be improved. My comment was simply that the IRC and regulatons will in this day and age, and for the future, inevitably feature both volume and complexity and therefore that simplification and reduction in the burden of tax administration is not really an argument for the flat tax, whatever its merits or demerits may be. The real issue is a much more difficult and substantive one, namely what principles should govern and determine the right rate (or rates) of tax, as the pages of this thread indicate. There already has been extensive work done on this subject.The current tax code, but more importantly, the current methodology used to create the tax code is fundamentally flawed. It will ALWAYS serve the special interests and individuals who have access to the Congress. The more Congress has to sell, the more there is to buy, the more bills get passed, and corruption follows: as my sig clearly states. IF we are to talk about this the way you desire, WRT principles, I first must make a correction to your thinking: Principles are not values. In terms of principles, stealing is wrong. Sitting on one's ass, collecting, without honestly looking for work, is stealing $ from taxpayers. Period. There is no debate or discussion because principles are not values. Stealing is breaking a principle and thus morally wrong. (Principles :: 10 commandments, but everybody knows them, and religion doesn't really enter into it.) Values are not principles. IF my values tell me that we should help the poor as much as possible, AND, my belief is that 95% of the poor got that way through no fault of their own, then I'm never going to see the stealing of tax $ by those mentioned above...as stealing. Thus, I'm never going see reducing $ paid to the poor as anything other than wrong. But, I am wrong. Why? Because giving $ to the poor, or not, is not a principle. At best it is a subjective abstraction: Who is poor? How much should we give? When do the poor stop being poor? Is it based on how much we give? See? Abstraction, and subjective. Trouble always ensues when we confuse principles with values. Values are ALWAYS subjective. Principles are NEVER subjective. That is the fundamental problem here: when anyone attempts to assert their values as though they = morality/principles? Always wrong. Thus, if you do in fact want to base tax code on principles? Then we must start with principles, and not values. Get it? If you want to base the code on your values, fine, but since they are subjective, you're wasting your time. Well.. To be fair: He never was attempting to establish a moral basis for taxation. TYTT is actually the one who introduced the concept into this discussion, which (imo) really isn't a super fun thing to talk about, because there isn't such a thing. How can you establish a 'moral' basis for any taxation, let alone one for a very specific (read 52%) percentage? After all, aren't morals personal? My morals aren't the same as TYTT's or DC Tom's or Dorkington's. It's a silly point to get caught up on becuase it doesn't really matter if it's moral or not. It just 'is'. It's almost as silly as trying to point out a minor detail on an message board debate between two anonymous people you don't know. As I said above: values are personal. Morals, morality and principles are not. They are universal, and every human being is aware of them. There is nothing silly about stealing from Medicare via fraud. That is just as immoral as stealing from unemployment by not actually trying to get a job. There are no "personal morals" involved in either. What is happening is that in both cases, values are so out of whack, that the choice to violate a principle is being made. Princples being overridden by values almost always means crime, guilt, or both. Some may try to rationalize their choice, but it is still stealing, they know it, and there is no debate. Why? Because principles are absolute and universal. Thus, basing a tax code on principles, and not values, is the definition of morality and not silly at all. Defining any law, based on values, which are subjective, and not on principles(or equity when there is no guiding principle) is by definition, immoral. What the current tax code has done? Rationalize cheating and stealing under many different false pretenses. But the ultimate problem is: morality doesn't care about when/where/which/who/what/how roads get built, unless they aren't being built, because someone is stealing. Thus, a principles-based tax code is never going to be a complete answer. TYTT is asking for the morality behind a tax code. As we can now see, that's a hopeless exercise, as taxation is mostly amoral, and has a lot more to do with equity than with morality. I've argued here before in support of "The Fair Tax". Not only is it moral but it eliminates (mostly) the IRS and brings the people that are flying under the radar into tax paying citizens. It's very straightforward and with each purchase consumers will be reminded how they are funding the government. It would eliminate much of the special interests in our present tax code. The great thing about the FAIR Tax is it does not violate any principles, but, more importantly, it severly reduces the opportunity to violate principles. Edited January 23, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Utilitarianism is bunk. Devine Leader Utilitarianism is North Korea. Great Job.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Utilitarianism is bunk. Devine Leader Utilitarianism is North Korea. Great Job. Directed at me? What I wrote above has 0 to do with utilitarianism. You asked about a moral basis for a tax code. As I wrote above, that is bunk. While a tax code must be based on human principles, that alone doesn't do the job. This is where equity, and not utilitarianism, fills out the rest of the need. Of course, equity as a concept, and equity and morality in combination to form law, will escape more than a few here. Doesn't make anything I'm saying any less true.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Directed at me? What I wrote above has 0 to do with utilitarianism. You asked about a moral basis for a tax code. As I wrote above, that is bunk. While a tax code must be based on human principles, that alone doesn't do the job. This is where equity, and not utilitarianism, fills out the rest of the need. Of course, equity as a concept, and equity and morality in combination to form law, will escape more than a few here. Doesn't make anything I'm saying any less true. Yeah. Utilitarianism. Edited January 23, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
Recommended Posts