Results 21 to 30 of 62
-
Tsikot Member Rank 4
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,979
May 21st, 2010 11:56 AM #21bawasan ang congressmen, senators....
tanggalin ang party list.... bawasan ang board members saka city councilors pati baranggay councilors tanggalin na din... for sure malaking chunk ang matitipid nila.....
bawasan din cdf saka allowances....
-
May 21st, 2010 12:42 PM #22
^^thats the best solution. Congress is to expensive to maintain. kumbaga di na sya feasible imaintain sa laki nya
Tax collection cannot be solved by a single president. kumbaga it is a continous process dahil nagaadjust din ang nandadaya. unfoftunately laging 2 steps advance ang nandadaya.
and ang mentality kasi ng gobyerno natin e kung sino yung me pambayad e yun ang gigipitin regardless kung tama sya magbayad ng tax para lang mareach ang collection target. wala man lang sila forecast ng business community kung how much expected tax na makokocollect nila. kaya kahit down ang business environment pilit pa rin sila nangongolekta para mareach ang target collection.
-
May 21st, 2010 01:00 PM #23
From experience?
How can you call one regressive and one progressive? Both our VAT and income taxes take the same percentage from rich and poor. In both cases, the rich pay more tax.
We don't have a sliding tax rate that gives a higher percentage tax to the rich. And yet, if we increase VAT, the rich will be paying slightly more for their luxuries than before, increasing income for the government.
RE: American model: yeah... Income tax, but tons of tax breaks for the rich... ...and if you're rich and the economy collapses, bailout money for you.
If you're eating at Jollibee, you're not minimum wage. Minimum wage earners buy their food from the wet market and provincial markets... from street stalls... the so-called "underground economy" where VAT is not implemented. (Yes, I buy my fish and vegetables from the street markets, too). Fuel for public transport is VAT-exempt, too.
If you're eating from Jollibee, you likely fall into the range I was talking about... 8000 pesos plus per month. More likely you're at 15,000 pesos a month. From 15,000 pesos, you're saving 1,350 a month from lower income tax, which will more than offset your monthly expense increase from a 3% increase in VAT.
Pero kung income tax naka base yan sa income mo. Now its true VAT is less prone to cheating because its factored to the price, but then again as I stated its more punishing to poorer people...
Again, daily necessities are affected less by VAT.
Eto medyo mas complex economics na din. Higher VAT favors savings over consumption. Yes on a personal economics, savings is a good thing pero for the greater economy SPENDING is better than SAVING. If people save and scrimp business will lose sales, lose sales will mean firing people, firing people means even less consumption since wala na silang trabaho and the economic downward spiral continues.
-
Yes, the poor won't be able to buy luxuries as easily, but the burden of tax is more fairly placed on consumption than income. It doesn't make sense to punish a person for being more productive by leveling a greater tax on them, but it makes sense to tax a person more for having more disposable income to waste on frivolities (which is why I agree with a luxury tax on "sin goods" and luxury automobiles). The uber-rich have a lot of cash to spend. That guy who bought a Porsche 911 Turbo has, in one purchase, paid more taxes than thousands of poor people will in a year.
-
I agree, though, that the government should focus first on curing inefficiencies in the system, but a move from income to sales tax isn't as bad you think.Last edited by niky; May 21st, 2010 at 01:05 PM.
Ang pagbalik ng comeback...
-
May 21st, 2010 01:40 PM #24
for sure kasi yung mga tao sa paligid nya nagdikta na "No new taxes" during pre-election time. di mo pwedeng sabihin na new taxes pag naelect, para mong sinaksak sarili mo,:D. etong mga taong ito ay isisisi lang sa iba(like to gloria, etc) kaya sasabihing need nila mag add ng new taxes. come, on, ang ating bansa ay parang isang naluluging company. output is always greater than the input. need natin ay isang master plan to be self sufficient. and pray the next president will continue it.
-
May 21st, 2010 01:48 PM #25
"Read my lips, no new taxes"
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w"]YouTube- George H. W. Bush[/ame]
he raised taxes laterLast edited by uls; May 21st, 2010 at 01:50 PM.
-
-
May 21st, 2010 01:58 PM #27
Hahahaha thats why he lost to Clinton in 1992... I wonder why the Bush's hate taxes even the son had a tax break which is about to expire...
-
May 21st, 2010 02:14 PM #28
-
May 21st, 2010 02:16 PM #29
-
May 21st, 2010 02:18 PM #30
Bush couldnt keep his promise
wiki:
When in office, Bush found it challenging to keep his promise. The Bush campaign's figures had been based on the assumption that the high growth of the late 1980s would continue throughout his time in office.[8] Instead, a recession began. By 1990, rising deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, began to greatly increase the federal deficit.
he has campaign promises to fulfill
one of them is to lift the poor out of poverty right?
if he cuts govt spending, he can't help the poor
so he has to go in the other direction -- which is to spend
which means more borrowing
which means more govt revenue goes to debt servicing
which means the govt has to collect more taxes
My Ford SYNC just updated itself. Anyone here knows what was updated?
2023 Ford Everest Owners Thread