rbw1966 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Don't you mean national SALES tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Pine Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Al_Pine said: OK all you Flat-taxers, let's move away from Mr. Roark's fantasy island, and see how the flat tax would affect you! Using PP's data on post 1, I've calculated some figures and put them in the table below. It allows you to look up how much it will cost/save you to make everything much more "fair" to those poor high-incomers. For example, if you are currently below the median (less than 28K per PP's post) then the cost of "fairness" to your brothers across the tracks is only paying 3.5 times more income tax. If you make between 29 and 56K$ then you have to pay 1.6 times more to Uncle Sam. But the bright side is, those people who make 300K$/year only have to pay half!!!! The system seems to be working(?), but hey, let's fuck with it and volunteer to pay more so those wealthier type people won't be unfairly burdened. As for you national sales tax people, that's even better! The lower your income, the greater percentage of your income you'll be spending on taxable goods, thus the lower income folks will be taxes at a higher rate (with respect to their income) from those in the upper end of the economic strata. Oooooh, sounds like a good idea. All you plebes go vote for it. At least it'll make those horribly complictated 1040EZ forms go away. Yes. Thanks Rob. Fixed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recycled Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Howard Roark: phone home, John Galt is looking for you - Ayn On a more serious note, how about this for a tax system: (A) a national value added tax (VAT) applied to all services and goods as in Europe. This would increase the price of goods and is thus a tax on consumption, as in a more sophisticated sales tax. Wealthy CONSUMERS would bear most of this cost while SAVERS would not. (2) A flat tax at a nominal rate with the first $25k per household exempted. Combine the two and you have a system that reduces taxes on INCOME while increasing taxes on CONSUMPTION. It also encourages savings to counter our dismal national savings rate and impending retirement funding crash. I'm also surprised that fellow "environmentalists" are not all over this, since excess mindless consumption is the root of most environmental problems. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 It's curious to me how this "we're overtaxed" mantra has taken place. Clearly the data show that taxes are way down, particulary for the well to do, and have generally stayed the same, around 26% for the middle income folks. And compared to other countries we pay substantially less. The intriging part to me is how folks in the middle income bracket are fighting for reduced taxes for the rich. Do they fantisize they they too will be like Bill Gates one day? And these are the same folks who turn a blind eye to the turn around from record surplus to record deficit in a mere two years. Amazing indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I like recycled's approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Jim said: It's curious to me how this "we're overtaxed" mantra has taken place. I just want to see more bang for my buck that's all. Let's see our legislators be a little fiscally reponsible. Pouring money on these problems year after year doesn't seem to be working...seems that all we're really funding is public employees pensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Pine Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Recycled approach is more practical in terms of making a larger voting block happy. The bottom 50% will like the no income tax part, although it depends on what percentage the VAT is whether or not they actually get taxed less or not. I quibble with recycled's statement that a VAT will affect the "wealthy consumers". How about just "consumers"; i.e., the poorer people who have to spend a greater percentage of their income will of course get taxed by a VAT at a higher rate (w.r.t. their income). No matter how you change the system like this, someone is gonna have to pay more because I don't think the total tax burden is going to go down. Someone is going to pay less. Recycled's plan is still going to make the wealthy pay less, and shift the burden to middle class types. I'll bet most of you are middle class types out there, why on Earth do you want to pay more taxes just to be "fair" to the more well to do? It just doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 Recycled said:......This would increase the price of goods and is thus a tax on consumption..... Many taxes will increase the price of goods but not all taxes doing so are a tax on consumption. Fairness is meaningless to me as an arguement. If you are going to use it I would ask that you comletely define fairness such that we can all agree on its measurement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 ChrisT said: Jim said: It's curious to me how this "we're overtaxed" mantra has taken place. I just want to see more bang for my buck that's all. Let's see our legislators be a little fiscally reponsible. Pouring money on these problems year after year doesn't seem to be working...seems that all we're really funding is public employees pensions No doubt accountability is a good thing is spending. That's why I think our current administration has driven the economic ship up on a sand bar. If you think the revenue shortfalls are a problem now, wait until you see the defecit and national debt climb to unpresidented levels over the next decade. The influence of the recent tax cuts will only increase over this time. Our kids will be facing the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Fairness is meaningless to me as an arguement. Obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recycled Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Taxing consumption is about more than redistributing the tax load. A middle class (or any) family that has priorities other than consumption would likely come out ahead. A middle class familty that lives for credit cards and the mall may come out worse. Wealthy consumers will pay more - if the equivalent VAT tax on the Hummer is 15-20%, they will pay quite a chunk of change. A poorer family that buys used goods (no VAT!) pays less. It all depends on the relative proportion of VAT tax, flat income tax rate and property tax rates. The savings issue is very important. I'm constantly amazed at how many people (at all income levels) believe that they should spend everything they earn and have essentially no savings. It seems to me that our taxation system could use a tweaking to encourage more saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Recycled said: Taxing consumption is about more than redistributing the tax load. A middle class (or any) family that has priorities other than consumption would likely come out ahead. A middle class familty that lives for credit cards and the mall may come out worse. Wealthy consumers will pay more - if the equivalent VAT tax on the Hummer is 15-20%, they will pay quite a chunk of change. A poorer family that buys used goods (no VAT!) pays less. It all depends on the relative proportion of VAT tax, flat income tax rate and property tax rates. \ You are correct, a poor family will pay less $$, but they will pay a higher proportion of their income because they have to spend with a higher proportion of their income. Another reason I don't like taxes on consumption is that it makes goods more expensive. Also, income tax is more aesthetically appealing. The reason you are being taxed is to keep the country going and allowing/helping you to earn a living. It has more appeal. The government makes roads, fights off enemies, protects copyrights, makes it safe for people to walk to your shop. It is helping you do business. You return in kind with a tax on your income. How can sales tax be aesthetically justified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Jim said: ChrisT said: Jim said: It's curious to me how this "we're overtaxed" mantra has taken place. I just want to see more bang for my buck that's all. Let's see our legislators be a little fiscally reponsible. Pouring money on these problems year after year doesn't seem to be working...seems that all we're really funding is public employees pensions No doubt accountability is a good thing is spending. That's why I think our current administration has driven the economic ship up on a sand bar. If you think the revenue shortfalls are a problem now, wait until you see the defecit and national debt climb to unpresidented levels over the next decade. The influence of the recent tax cuts will only increase over this time. Our kids will be facing the bill. As a working class Joe that's what I want to know. What will be the result of the tax cuts? Will it be a rising tide lifting all boats? I have a difficult time seeing the current Administration as one that has a vision for all Americans. Admittedly, that's a tall order but why isn't that possible staying true to the ideals of this country? Why does it seem like that the Administration has forged an alliance between big business interests and religious fundamentalists? As I see it, big business caters to a public of mass consumerism: everything is a commodity. It fosters a cow-like public school system to produce obedient consumers (here's another credit card offer...) and true discontent and protest will be sanitized, banned, or otherwise prohibited. A consumer dystopia fueled by lottery dreams and credit offers... And, the religious zealots? We're gonna control your thoughts because we have the one and only true God on our side. Any other thoughts contrary to our doctrine is heresy. Government and religion side with each other to keep the masses in check. Maybe when the shit really hits the fan, the preachers and pastors will revive the 'ol pie in the sky': you'll get your reward in another realm just work your asses off to pay off your debts, don't criticize authority, and keep having babies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 chucK said: Another reason I don't like taxes on consumption is that it makes goods more expensive. Do corp income taxes do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Recycled said: Taxing consumption is about more than redistributing the tax load. A middle class (or any) family that has priorities other than consumption would likely come out ahead. A middle class familty that lives for credit cards and the mall may come out worse. Wealthy consumers will pay more - if the equivalent VAT tax on the Hummer is 15-20%, they will pay quite a chunk of change. A poorer family that buys used goods (no VAT!) pays less. It all depends on the relative proportion of VAT tax, flat income tax rate and property tax rates. The savings issue is very important. I'm constantly amazed at how many people (at all income levels) believe that they should spend everything they earn and have essentially no savings. It seems to me that our taxation system could use a tweaking to encourage more saving. Your ideas make good sense. I also believe people should be required to turn in their old shit (and NOT to the landfill) before they are allowed to acquire new shit - and that ought to be a law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Peter_Puget said: chucK said: Another reason I don't like taxes on consumption is that it makes goods more expensive. Not if you're Exxon and can write off that little oil spill thing as a tax deduction and then pay 0 taxes. Do corp income taxes do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 . Wealthy CONSUMERS would bear most of this cost while SAVERS would not. problem is politicians want the former and not the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 Hey Jim got the first review posted for this little book! Bush Boom PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 ChrisT said: I also believe people should be required to turn in their old shit (and NOT to the landfill) before they are allowed to acquire new shit - and that ought to be a law! Oooh, you're all about personal freedom, aren't ya? Give me a fucking break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 so turn in your old tv or microwave or give 'em away before you buy the new ones. What's so hard about that? Most of it just ends up in Arlington, Oregon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Peter_Puget said: Hey Jim got the first review posted for this little book! Bush Boom PP Fool! I spit in you're general direction and give you this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713997435/ref%3Ded%5Fsoc%5F%5F1%5F2/026-1223258-2436446 en garde! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 LOL don't get me started on that evil man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 17, 2003 Author Share Posted October 17, 2003 Just saw this today: look for the October 15th entry This is a great read! Luna Jim and Walmart bashers read it! Poor are getting richer faster and the already rich slow down! PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Ya know, I think Peter's on to something here. If we just do nothing then all those worthless folks working at the burger king will eventually be rubbing shoulders with Bill Gates and his neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Peter_Puget said: LOL don't get me started on that evil man! I actually thought you would like this guy! He was bashing Clinton's fiscal policies almost as much as Bushie. He's a fiscal conservative who thinks we're playing shell games with things like SS, and we're going to pay later big time. You gotta widen you're reading list buddy. Do you really subscribe to that right wing newsletter trash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.