why noy eliminate income tax and replace it with consumption tax?

[jetdog]

huh?

[HBox]

Because it places a larger burden on the poor.

[jetdog]

Because it places a larger burden on the poor.
explain, please?

If small necesary goods such as food nd transportation are and adequate housing are not infringed upon by income tax, yet extrravagant yachts and estates sufure large taxations, shoudln't there be some benefit for workers, not having a huge chuink of their paycheck out each month?

P.S. I'm the devils advocate here.....

[HBox]

explain, please?

If small necesary goods such as food nd transportation are and adequate housing are not infringed upon by income tax, yet extrravagant yachts and estates sufure large taxations, shoudln't there be some benefit for workers, not having a huge chuink of their paycheck out each month?

P.S. I'm the devils advocate here.....

Most consumption taxes tax everything you buy. Taxing everything you buy would mean that, as a percentage of their income, the poorest people would pay the most. Because they have to spend everything they make to get by. You'd probably lower their already low quality of life.

Want to exempt food and clothing? OK. You've just cut off a huge revenue stream. You'll have to make it up by taxing everything else even more.

They are going to get your money on way or the other. Considering that most consumption tax proposals bend over backwards to be as close to what we have now as possible through various exemptions and subsidies I wonder what's the point? Fact is you'll always be paying taxes and you'll always hate doing it whether you pay on the way in or the way out.

[scottinnj]

huh?

YEEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!

[celery]

Isn't this basically what the FairTax proposes?

[Bulldogcakes]

Because it places a larger burden on the poor.

It would work like a sales tax, but basic items like food, medications and clothing would be exempted. So actually, its a tax on the rich when you think about it. Because the rich by definition spend the most on non essential items.

I like that you can control the amount of taxes you pay, so I support it. Its fairer and simpler than the hideous monstrosity of a system we have now.

But this will never be passed. You know why? WE HAD THIS SYSTEM ALREADY. The Feds used to get most of their money from the country's inception to the early 1900's through "Tariffs", imported goods were taxed heavily and only the rich could afford them (and therefore the rich paid most of the federal taxes). Pre-1913 the Feds got just about all their money from Tariffs and property taxes, again mostly affecting only the rich. But when the economy would go into recession, or back then even Depressions, people would pull back on their spending and the Feds would have to tighten their belts. They didn't like this, so they passed the 16th amendment. We now have a Federal Government that grows and grows, regardless of who's in power. Taking more and more of our money and freedom with it daily.

History lesson over.

[jetdog]

Most consumption taxes tax everything you buy. Taxing everything you buy would mean that, as a percentage of their income, the poorest people would pay the most. Because they have to spend everything they make to get by. You'd probably lower their already low quality of life.

Want to exempt food and clothing? OK. You've just cut off a huge revenue stream. You'll have to make it up by taxing everything else even more.

They are going to get your money on way or the other. Considering that most consumption tax proposals bend over backwards to be as close to what we have now as possible through various exemptions and subsidies I wonder what's the point? Fact is you'll always be paying taxes and you'll always hate doing it whether you pay on the way in or the way out.

I didn't mean to exempt anything, but to place a percentage tax on consumables. Isn't it worth discussing at leas? What's better, coming or going? Remember what bushy said, "There's a dodge..!!"
What's 7% for a loaf of bread compared to 7% for a mutltimillion dollar estaste, or a Jaguar for that matter?

[jetdog]

History lesson over.

Is it?

[SouthSideJohnny]

Isn't this basically what the FairTax proposes?

I like the concept behind the Fair Tax, but even it passed somehow, it would eventually be butchered with exemptions from the special interest groups, just like what happened with our current tax code.

Jetdog, if you haven't read the "Fair Tax" book by Neal Boortz, check it out. It's an interesting read, and it explains the history of taxes in our country (although there's a good summary a few posts above me).

[Bulldogcakes]

Want to exempt food and clothing? OK. You've just cut off a huge revenue stream. You'll have to make it up by taxing everything else even more.

Think about it, if you exempt necessities (like food/clothing/meds) and then have to tax everything else more, who will end up the most? Poor people spend most of their money just getting by buying exempted necessities, the rich blow huge wads on frivolous bullshit. The RICH would end up paying more.

But there's a different problem with that, one that is basic to democracy. The poor can vote, yet they wouldn't be paying anything into the system. I think that would marginalize them even further in the eyes of the rich and middle class, creating bitterness and resentments we don't need as a nation.

Also, as it stands now the poor get far more value in services than they pay into the system. Under this system, they would be paying nothing and therefore have no financial stake in the system. They could just vote for whoever claims they will give them the most goodies, and not care what any of it costs. I don't think its healthy for democracy to have an entire class of people with rights, but no responsibility. We have too much of that already.

[HBox]

It would work like a sales tax, but basic items like food, medications and clothing would be exempted. So actually, its a tax on the rich when you think about it. Because the rich by definition spend the most on non essential items.

No it really isn't. First of all let's deal with the biggest issue: Buying a house. Adding a 10% tax (And I'm being exceptionally generous. Any tax would be higher) would raise the barrier to home ownership. That's a pretty big deal in this country.

It would raise the bar for affording the things that define the middle class. Any consumption tax would also encourage savings. I'll admit that's something this country really needs right now.

[Bulldogcakes]

Is it?

I thought I was getting a little long winded and preachy there.

And thats not my job, its Yerdaddy's. And he's much better at it than I am.

[HBox]

The poor can vote, yet they wouldn't be paying anything into the system.

Poor people voting. HAH! What are we in, FantasyLand?

[sailor]

hbox's posts are totally correct.

[Bulldogcakes]

No it really isn't. First of all let's deal with the biggest issue: Buying a house. Adding a 10% tax (And I'm being exceptionally generous. Any tax would be higher) would raise the barrier to home ownership. That's a pretty big deal in this country.

It would raise the bar for affording the things that define the middle class. Any consumption tax would also encourage savings. I'll admit that's something this country really needs right now.

First of all, most of the proposals I've heard (I know, there are many) exempt homes above the median national price. The basics are exempted food, clothing, shelter and meds. But as you said that means the rate goes up that much higher on everything else. Again, rich pay most of the tax, and do it willingly unlike the system we have now which is compulsory. Thats what bothers me and most anti tax types the most, the forced nature of it.

As far as savings goes that's a bogus stat that you hear constantly. Old fashioned thinking that doesn't reflect todays world. Thats the money people put in the bank and earn their stupid 2% on. Back in Grandma's day, if you had any extra money you put it in the bank and they would turn around and invest it somewhere at a profit. Now, anyone with either a brain or any real money calls a Charles Shwab or some mutual fund company and opens an account and either invests it their self or pays someone to do it for them. People just use their bank accounts nowadays for paying day to day bills, and thats about it. If you count investments, we have a much higher savings rate.

[Bulldogcakes]

hbox's posts are totally correct.

Thanks for adding that! WOW! HOW ENLIGHTENING!

[sailor]

Thanks for adding that! WOW! HOW ENLIGHTENING!

it's a rare thing for me to agree with him. plus, i wanted to show support without boring by typing the same things he did over with different wording.

[HBox]

First of all, most of the proposals I've heard (I know, there are many) exempt homes above the median national price. The basics are exempted food, clothing, shelter and meds. But as you said that means the rate goes up that much higher on everything else. Again, rich pay most of the tax, and do it willingly unlike the system we have now which is compulsory. Thats what bothers me and most anti tax types the most, the forced nature of it.

It would then in reality be at least a 20%+ tax on stuff like cars, gas, electronics, electricity, cell phones, services, restaurants, just about anything you buy. On top of whatever you pay in state sales tax, of course. But I can't get in depth obviously without speaking about any specific proposal.

But just going on people's perception for a moment. It's never easy to watch the government take taxes. But I think if people started having to add a significant percentage to almost every single purchase they make it would wear on them fast. I think it would be worse than looking at your pay stub.

But it would be much easier to just simplify the current tax code by removing like 98% of all deductions. If simplification is what this is all about. Because that whole "forced nature" about having to pay taxes? Yeah, that's kind of the whole point. You live here, you're a citizen, you have to pay taxes. If we didn't have to, who would?

[buzzard]

I basically did 17 years ago when I retired..Ya'll seem to be doing OK without my tariff.

[sailor]

It would then in reality be at least a 20%+ tax on stuff like cars, gas, electronics, electricity, cell phones, services, restaurants, just about anything you buy. On top of whatever you pay in state sales tax, of course. But I can't get in depth obviously without speaking about any specific proposal.

But just going on people's perception for a moment. It's never easy to watch the government take taxes. But I think if people started having to add a significant percentage to almost every single purchase they make it would wear on them fast. I think it would be worse than looking at your pay stub.

But it would be much easier to just simplify the current tax code by removing like 98% of all deductions. If simplification is what this is all about. Because that whole "forced nature" about having to pay taxes? Yeah, that's kind of the whole point. You live here, you're a citizen, you have to pay taxes. If we didn't have to, who would?

heck, just look at whenever ny has had tax-free week and you'll see how quickly this would wear on people. they go nuts because their dollars buy more stuff.

[Bulldogcakes]

It would then in reality be at least a 20%+ tax on stuff like cars, gas, electronics, electricity, cell phones, services, restaurants, just about anything you buy. On top of whatever you pay in state sales tax, of course. But I can't get in depth obviously without speaking about any specific proposal.

But just going on people's perception for a moment. It's never easy to watch the government take taxes. But I think if people started having to add a significant percentage to almost every single purchase they make it would wear on them fast. I think it would be worse than looking at your pay stub.

But it would be much easier to just simplify the current tax code by removing like 98% of all deductions. If simplification is what this is all about. Because that whole "forced nature" about having to pay taxes? Yeah, that's kind of the whole point. You live here, you're a citizen, you have to pay taxes. If we didn't have to, who would?

Actually, I've heard proposals as high as 33-40% with the basics exempted.

As to the second point, YES! THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!! Make people understand what they're paying then they'll stop acting like government can give them stuff for free. They'll actually have a sense of what the Feds cost us and it changes the entire discussion from "What will you do for me Daddy Pol?" to "how much will THIS bright idea cost ME?" And then hopefully they'll throw the bum out. It would also change the way people look at "pork" from their Reps. Anything unnecessary some pol gets can be seen as a wasteful use of their money. It can change the mindset of many voters from "Get all you can!" to "Did we really need that?"

You've just nailed it, and its why it will never happen. Politicians get too much of their power and influence throwing around tax breaks to lobbyists. Good for those who get the tax breaks, good for the pols, bad for the rest of us.

[HBox]

Actually, I've heard proposals as high as 33-40% with the basics exempted.

As to the second point, YES!

OK. Calm down Alan Alda.

THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!! Make people understand what they're paying then they'll stop acting like government can give them stuff for free. They'll actually have a sense of what the Feds cost us and it changes the entire discussion from "What will you do for me Daddy Pol?" to "how much will THIS bright idea cost ME?" And then hopefully they'll throw the bum out. It would also change the way people look at "pork" from their Reps. Anything unnecessary some pol gets can be seen as a wasteful use of their money. It can change the mindset of many voters from "Get all you can!" to "Did we really need that?"

You've just nailed it, and its why it will never happen. Politicians get too much of their power and influence throwing around tax breaks to lobbyists. Good for those who get the tax breaks, good for the pols, bad for the rest of us.

You are ignoring one essential side to this story. Of course people don't like paying taxes. Equally, they don't like it when government services are cut. Pork exists for a reason. Just as with the relationship between people, their representative in Congress, and Congress itself. People hate Congress but ask any of them about THEIR OWN representative and most will say "Oh, he's great, the rest of them are the problem." The same with pork. "We really needed this new park the federal government paid for. But pork is ruining America." Pork exists because people want it.

And going back to one of your previous points, it is good for the government to have a somewhat stable stream of revenue. There are services that the government needs to provide regardless of the economic situation, and some that are even more essential in down times. We can't just have a situation where no one was buying yachts and Hummers so the government has to go "We can't afford Medicaid this year so go die all you sick poor people."

The biggest problem this country has is that for the last 6 years the fools running this government have spent like nuts and made not even the slightest attempt to pay for any of it. If they paid for what they were spending there would be blow back. This is the biggest problem and would not be solved by a new taxation system.

[Bulldogcakes]

If they paid for what they were spending there would be blow back. This is the biggest problem and would not be solved by a new taxation system.

I think it would. If instead of having the money deducted (where we never get our grubby lil hands on it) people had to reach down in their pockets to PAY for what they get from Government, I think it would fundamentally change the way they view Washington. The ones that are paying, at least. I know people see their paychecks now but its really not the same. Only that first one you get bugs you, after that you get used to it.

You know why it bugs me so much? Because I have a small biz and I have to write those checks. IT WOULD CREATE A NATION OF BULLDOGS AND THEN WE WILL RULE THE WORLD!! YOU WILL ALL THINK LIKE ME!!
MWAAAAAA HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Seriously, try writing that check once a month instead of having them deduct it. Drives you nuts. What I could do with all that money, or at least some of it.

[zentraed]

an important statistic, but one you rarely see is the effective rate of taxation. after property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, what flat percentage of your money has gone to taxes?

http://www.zentraed.com/ronfez/p3a.gif

the tax burden isn't nearly as lopsided as people often make it seem.

[Crispy123]

Corporate Tax is what is hurting us...or corporate subsidies depending on how you look at it.

[SatCam]

why noy eliminate income tax and cut government spending?

:banning:

[epo]

Corporate Tax is what is hurting us...or corporate subsidies depending on how you look at it.

Exactly. We've gone from a society that corporations pay taxes in that has services that the citzenry expect, to a society that corporations don't pay taxes in that has services that the corporations expect. In that case, the citzens will pay higher taxes.

One of the real problems with US tax policy is the citizen base. The current base has needs...fair enough. But the federal government won't admit that the population model demands that we should have the highest surpluses in history to overcome the impending retiring Baby Boomers...when infact we have the highest deficit in history.

I'm 34 years old, and because of this reality I won't be able to retire until I'm 70 if I'm lucky without the promise of social security. I just wish the government & the populus would grow the fuck up and stop looking for tricks to pay the bills and make us happy.

Do you know what would make me happy? A fiscally responsible government, with long-term vision that taxes corporations justly and individuals progressively. Is that so goddamned hard?

[MrPink]

I had a grand idea of our govt cutting spending so that the taxes we pay will be less. Guess what, the govt will take any good idea and do the exact opposite. We can dream about unicorns and consumption taxes, but we aint gonna see em.