| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 03:19 PM |
Taxes
|
The United States and all of the states and local governments should cast away income taxes and property taxes and replace them with sales taxes.
The federal government could operate on a sales tax of about 19 to 21 percent
states could operate their budgets on smaller sales taxes of about five to 10 percent
cities and counties could also operate their budgets on sales tax within a three percent range.
Schools could tack on at either the state or local level to operate their systems. If schools want to keep their historical link to property, perhaps special sales tax on home sales could be dedicated solely to schools and county operations.
Within a new system of sales taxes, without the burdensome income or property taxes, citizens would have the choice of their tax burden.
Governments could easily dedicate specific percentages within these sales taxes to go to various departments. For instance the Department of the Interior could receive 1/4 a cent on the federal 19-21 cents sales tax. The DOD could operate on a larger amount of say 5 percent.
Without burdensome income taxes and property taxes citizens would have more money to spend. They could save more money than they presently do, an unlikely outcome. Or they could spend more money than they currently do, a more likely outcome.
Cost of goods and services would no doubt rise, but the additional money in the citizen's pocket would more than make up for any additional costs in the marketplace.
You are free to choose your tax burden, unlike today. No one is free to choose their tax burden.
While an additional 40 cents on the dollar may seem extreme and produce sticker shock, it is a choice rather than losing 50 percent of your income through the current system of income, property and sales taxes.
Then maybe someday we can become so sophisticated that we can check off a list of the taxes we want to pay beyond necessary government services.
It would make the government have to produce results rather than what we currently have, complete failures at all levels that require more and more funding to produce less and less.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 04:22 PM |
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Thats another backdoor approach to boost the Democratic party's influence.
Its unfortunate that they manage to pull the wool over a lot of conservatives heads. It reminds me of election reform, another case of conservatives looking the wrong way.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 04:34 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
Democrats are against this, it would put too much burden on the po folk in their minds
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 05:23 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Democrats are against this, it would put too much burden on the po folk in their minds
Yeah you just keep believing Lib, I'll look at history.
You'll have to pardon me if I don't believe all that the Democrats say or pretend to believe.
It would shift a huge burden to the lower economic strata, a perfect agenda for the Dems to push more social programs, "To even things up". The problem is it would push that burden well into the middle class Conservatives, and many would convert, whether they liked it or not.
| duko™ |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 05:59 PM |
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
it can be any worse than it already is...
duko
| Ozark |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 06:37 PM |
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
I agree the present tax structure is terrible, and needs to be replaced. I don't think the answer is sales taxes, though. Remember the big overriding principle when it comes to taxation:
"Whatever you tax, you get less of - whatever you subsidize, you get more of."
Now that's the truth - always. You wouldn't want a system that discourages purchases. Hell, I'd be figuring ways to beat the system by buying stuff overseas, or under the table, or making things myself. Or - just not buying it at all. So would everyone else.
I think the United States' first system of taxation was the fairest - the government should get all its money from TARIFFS.
Tax the hell out of anything except raw materials when it enters our country. The U.S. market is too big for the world to ignore - there would be lots of imports in spite of such a tax. But doing that would raise the price of foreign products and we'd all pay it - sort of like the sales tax.
Taxing only imports, though, would do away with foreign countries' advantage in our market. It would no longer matter that their workers are cheap and that they don't have environmental costs in their manufacturing. That would encourage AMERICAN manufacturing, create jobs, and keep more of the wealth at home.
And Liberty, your Hondas would be so expensive you'd buy a Chevy next time - and some AMERICANS could make a living building it for you.
| GUS |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 06:55 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
It wouldn't be worse, in fact much better. More-less this came from a book called "Fair Tax Plan, a way to abolish the IRS" It was written by Congressman John Linder and Neil Boartz. It would simply turn the tax world on end and it wouldn't raise taxes at the end of the day. It is a consumption tax. The more you buy, then obviously the more tax you pay. (Only on new items, not used, buy a used car for $5,000 and you don't pay a penny in taxes.) The reason the tax wouldn't raise is two fold. There would be NO income tax, yup you keep all your money, no FICA no nothing, secondly you as a consumer are already paying the taxes. Business, in essence doesn't pay taxes, they only pass the taxes through. (Business will make the same margin no matter what the taxes are because taxes are the same for all competitors, it is not a function of productivity.) Business adds the cost of the tax to the final goods, which is argued in the book to be the same as the 20-23% that they say would be the fair consumption tax. More less tit for tat. (The passed through taxes on goods are called imbedded taxes.) On top of this it would help US businesses and US jobs. We don't tax imports like other countries tax our exports to them. This would simply put China and Japan on the same playing field as the US. They get a 20% consumption tax the same as a US manufacturer. (Remeber they don't have the US imbedded taxes, but in fact tax breaks from their own government to them for selling exports to us.) Add 20% to the cost of their goods and see who's economy will boost. The final cost of US goods would go down roughly 20% due to the loss of the embedded taxes and the nature of competition. Say Budweiser and Coors sell a 12 pack for $10 and are making $5 on each. All of a sudden they make $2 more because the inbeded cost burden is taken away. Now they are making $7 on a $10 item. To increase business and keep the stockholders happy, Coors will reduce their price $2 in hopes to increase market share because they are happy with the $5 of profit they previously made on a $10 item. (50% margin is good) When Budweiser sees this they will obviously not want to lose market share, lose their economy of scale and eventually the bottom line so they too will reduce the price by the same amount as the imbedded tax to stay profitable and competitve. There is obviously more to it than this simple explanation but it is a book that is definaltely worth the read. Sorry for the E-Con lesson.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 07:43 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
I just made GUS a three star general after that
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 08:06 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"Yeah you just keep believing Lib, I'll look at history.
You'll have to pardon me if I don't believe all that the Democrats say or pretend to believe.
It would shift a huge burden to the lower economic strata, a perfect agenda for the Dems to push more social programs, "To even things up". The problem is it would push that burden well into the middle class Conservatives, and many would convert, whether they liked it or not."--Hellbender
I would like to title this post, I'm just going to disagree with anything you say.
there is absolutely no evidence that Democrats would support this system of taxation.
The class warfare system we currently have is perfect for Democrats who want to punish achievers for succeeding
So how many accountants do you have in the family HB?
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 08:15 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
You would Liberty, because he misses the point just like you.
Gus thats not a Eco lesson, thats a fairy tale.
Quote:
The more you buy, then obviously the more tax you pay
So you two economist really think that the guy that makes 1 mil a year really buys that much more stuff than the average Joe? The reality is that, just as Ozark alluded to, the rich guy goes to Cancun, while old Joe buys his groceries here and pays through the nose. Yeah you can buy a used car and don't have to worry about it, but you can do that now. While Joe pays taxes on almost everything he earns, the rich guy buys a little more, but puts the rest into investments and when he turns a profit he simply keeps investing, eventually doing it overseas where the economy is growing, due to the poor economy and class unrest created here.
But hey, if you guys think Liberty can see a good plan, feel free to jump in here and pat him on the back.
Duko, you're absolutely right that the present tax situation sucks, but trying to get a system thats so simple congress can understand it is obviously too simple to be worth the effort.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 08:31 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
yet again Hellbender playing a Democratic class envy card.
who the fork cares where the rich guy spends his money that's straight out of the Democratic handbook, where they believe all money is the government's money therefore they have the right to be offended that a rich guy went overseas and bought something.
Damn, dude you are more and more liberal everyday, let's see you want Medicare extended to everyone rather than a free market based healthcare system, you want the forest service to keep all its land and continue managing it poorly rather than sell some of it and turn over control locally (a conservative cornerstone), and now you want to protect a terrible tax system that taxes you from day one to after you are dead. It taxes you for consumption, it taxes you for making an income and it taxes you for owning property.
I'm pretty sure Goldwater wants his vote back
| GUS |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 08:46 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
The person that makes more spends more????? ABSOLUTELY. They still have to buy the consumables. As for purchasing more luxury items, I'm not arguing unless: new vacation homes, resteraunt visits five times a week, new golf clubs every year, a new Benelli every season, a new car everytime it needs tires fall into the average Joe's spending habits. As for investing, your right, the rich invest. The rich invest in business, in american jobs. In fact I am glad my boss invested or I wouldn't have a job. As for the over seas deal, that is why this tax plan works, it takes out the value of overseas companies and makes it profitable to do busines with US companies, US employees, making the US company worth more, and the US employee more valuable. (Unless this isn't investing) I think the problem is some Joe's want the rich guys money, and taxing/taking it is easiest way to do it. As for the congress statement, they don't want a simple plan they want their job secured. Most of them are either loyal to their IRS buddies, attorneys or tax accontants, this plan would put them out of a useless job. Could you imagine the trillions that would be saved if this went through, no IRS (or a IRS 1/100 the size of the present one), no April 15th, no FICA. This would clean up trillions in government waste. OH YEAH, by the way with this plan, your right, everyone gets taxed. Especially all those illegals and all those making un-reported income, that is unless they never buy anything and steal it instead.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:15 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Goldwater wants his vote back
Ah Rosie, I know it was way before your time, but Goldwater wanted a 3% flat tax in 1964.
Quote:
The person that makes more spends more????? ABSOLUTELY. They still have to buy the consumables. As for purchasing more luxury items, I'm not arguing unless: new vacation homes, resteraunt visits five times a week, new golf clubs every year, a new Benelli every season,
NOW, under the present system, but what makes you think that will continue? They're rich enough to pick and choose.
Have you done the math to lay out the anticipated tax burden of say, someone who earns $60,000 a year, and has 3 kids against someone who's kids are grown and the household income is 1 mil? Will they spend 16 times as much to draw even?
Oh and Benelli's are good shotguns and don't need to be replaced every year.
| Ozark |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:19 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
I think the fair way to do it would be with a flat income tax - but it would have to be with NO loopholes or exceptions.
If they'd just take 10% of EVERY dollar earned in this country, they'd have all the money they'd ever need - and that would easily fund all state, federal, and local government.
But it'll never be done that way, because by no exceptions I mean NO exceptions. Every business, including non-profits and churches would pay 10% of their gross receipts. Every individual, rich or poor, would pay 10% of their gross income - with a Constitutional amendment stating that the rate can never be raised and no deductions, loopholes, or exceptions can ever be enacted.
The rich would probably pay more than they pay now - with no fancy accounting or deductions allowed. The poor wouldn't be hurt much by paying a dime on each of the few dollars they make.
And it'll never happen - because it's fair, sensible, and there's no "pork" in there for anyone.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:27 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"So you two economist really think that the guy that makes 1 mil a year really buys that much more stuff than the average Joe?"--Hellbender
not as a percentage of his income, but he definitely buys more than the average Joe, and he buys more expensive items than the average Joe at Wal-Mart, while Joe spends $200 at Wal-Mart a week, the millionaire spends $200 on one shirt that he calls his work shirt. While average Joe buys a Chevy every four to eight years, millionaire Joe buys three vehicles in a three year span and they ain't Chevys and if they are they are the expensive ones.
While average Joe spends $500 to buy his kids stuff for school, millionaire Joe spends $1,500 to do the same. He then books a vacation.
The average Joe definitely spends more money as a percentage of his income, but since sales tax revenues are based on gross sales, millionaire Joe far exceeds average Joe's contribution to the federal treasury.
Millionaire Joe must also eat, while average Joe buys a can of chili, millionaire Joe goes out to the finest restaurant in town and drops down a few hundred to a couple of grand on a meal and wine. Millionaire Joe also spends more money at the grocery store.
Plus, with the new tax system, millionaire Joe is actually a millionaire rather than a person who gets to keep half of what he earned in the present system of taxation.
another point, some people fear a sales tax on home sales, imagine the stark difference in paying a one time tax on a home rather than an annual property tax. A person who moves around a lot may be adversely affected by the sales tax, but a person who stays in place for several years will easily pay less in taxes, have a lower mortgage payment and more money in his pocket to go to Lowes or Home Depot to make improvements on his house.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:30 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
I agree, except for the business tax, to quote, I believe, Goldwater again, something to the effect that only people pay taxes. The end affect is you punish the successful business.
I would also would tax, lightly, unearned gains, Stock windfalls, lotteries, etc, and profits if they didn't reinvest them in beneficial capital investments, no bonus escape.
| duko™ |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:38 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Hellbender said:
burden of say, someone who earns $60,000 a year, and has 3 kids against someone who's kids are grown and the household income is 1 mil? Will they spend 16 times as much to draw even?
I would have to say that under a fair tax system the feller that only makes 60,000 per year would starting thinking twice about where he puts his pecker. As it is, he knows the govt. will pick up the slack.....
duko
| duko™ |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:42 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
And under the fair tax law, I don't think a sales tax is applied to items of necessity, i.e. poverty, so by having more kids he's only taking away from his own potential luxuries
duko
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/16/07 09:55 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
And under the fair tax law, I don't think a sales tax is applied to items of necessity
Missouri and some of the states around it ease up on groceries, but thats all, and you can be sure the feds won't come up with anything fair, unless there's a vote attached.
A flat income tax was proposed long before the insidious sales tax. Which by the way was started in cities run by Democratic machines here.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 01:58 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
in reality neither one will ever pass, Hellbender sees the boogie man in a sales tax, and Democrats everywhere scream bloody murder anytime you mention a flat income tax
we will continue to be taxed to our gills for eternity for that very reason
scared of the future and less taxes, apparently a problem for both sides of the aisle
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 04:06 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Hellbender sees the boogie man in a sales tax, and Democrats everywhere scream bloody murder anytime you mention a flat income tax
No hellbender sees the reality of it. The Sales tax was first proposed back around 1900, because it was thought no sane reps would pass such a tax.
Neither side wants a flat tax because there's no play in it, no adjustments, at least not that can be slid by the voters.
The reality is that individuals shouldn't be paying federal taxes, the states should be collecting taxes and supporting the federal government in a perfect world.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 04:29 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
the reality is that'll never happen, so you need to work on what will before there's a damn armed revolution that will go nowhere since we's got a kick ass military.
| fish |
| (senior member - literally) |
| 10/17/07 04:45 AM |
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Read and I mean read and ABSORB the Fair Tax book by Lindner and Boortz. It would rid of us for the need of an IRS which would have the libs slitting their wrists and jumping off high buildings. Until you have read and researched it don't comment on it.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 04:48 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
Boortz is second only to Limbaugh on knowing what the hell is up
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 05:02 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Until you have read and researched it don't comment on it.
I haven't read all of it so I'll comment on the part I did and remember. If I'm off, you can steer me right Fish.
First and foremost its not a simple tax, even though its advertised as one. It is much simpler then the present mess. Depending on how its written, it could very quickly become just as complicated as the present tax. I don't think anyone would believe it can eliminate the IRS, thats simply doesn't compute.
I haven't gone far enough to know what their suggested rate is, and how thats going to replace the present rate, which we admittedly can't compute.
There would be nothing simpler than keeping X number of dollars out of your "checks", no matter where it came from and with a consistent sliding scale with a flat tax for income beyond reasonable earnings.
The individual, at the end of the year, could the send a postcard in, top line = how much you made, second line = how much tax you paid = third = how much you should have paid, fourth line = any refund you might have coming.
Each individual could make sure, quarterly, that his rate is consistent with his income, and it could be done in a couple of minutes.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 05:08 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
if it is a flat income tax HB, wouldn't the money taken out of your check simply be removed at the same flat rate based on the size of the check thereby creating no need for a refund or a subsequent payment?
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/17/07 05:47 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
if it is a flat income tax HB, wouldn't the money taken out of your check simply be removed at the same flat rate based on the size of the check thereby creating no need for a refund or a subsequent payment?
Not if the flat tax is based on yearly income. Putting a flat tax in affect without adjustments for income can't work. To give refunds is, in my opinion, a backassward way of doing a simple job, giving a break to the lower income levels to prevent an outcry of "Carrying the rich". Lets face it, we hear that now even though its not true. The liberal left would have a field day with an unadjusted flat tax, but that shouldn't prevent the adoption of a simple tax.
So in order to cover multiple checks, the individual makes the adjustment, with a calculator by simply keeping a running total and making a quarterly adjustment.
| Ozark |
| (member) |
| 10/18/07 01:14 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
I just made GUS a three star general after that
I just gave him a big NEGATIVE and knocked him back down to two stars.
I've got nothing against GUS, I'm sure he's a helluva nice guy, and I'd have been glad to give him another star myself if I'd thought of it.
But I wouldn't want Liberty's opinion to count for anything.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/18/07 01:16 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
shouldn't you be drinking more of your swill
| Vogi |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 03:40 AM |
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
"So you two economist really think that the guy that makes 1 mil a year really buys that much more stuff than the average Joe?"--Hellbender
not as a percentage of his income, but he definitely buys more than the average Joe, and he buys more expensive items than the average Joe at Wal-Mart, while Joe spends $200 at Wal-Mart a week, the millionaire spends $200 on one shirt that he calls his work shirt. While average Joe buys a Chevy every four to eight years, millionaire Joe buys three vehicles in a three year span and they ain't Chevys and if they are they are the expensive ones.
While average Joe spends $500 to buy his kids stuff for school, millionaire Joe spends $1,500 to do the same. He then books a vacation.
The average Joe definitely spends more money as a percentage of his income, but since sales tax revenues are based on gross sales, millionaire Joe far exceeds average Joe's contribution to the federal treasury.
Millionaire Joe must also eat, while average Joe buys a can of chili, millionaire Joe goes out to the finest restaurant in town and drops down a few hundred to a couple of grand on a meal and wine. Millionaire Joe also spends more money at the grocery store.
Plus, with the new tax system, millionaire Joe is actually a millionaire rather than a person who gets to keep half of what he earned in the present system of taxation.
another point, some people fear a sales tax on home sales, imagine the stark difference in paying a one time tax on a home rather than an annual property tax. A person who moves around a lot may be adversely affected by the sales tax, but a person who stays in place for several years will easily pay less in taxes, have a lower mortgage payment and more money in his pocket to go to Lowes or Home Depot to make improvements on his house.
You really need to get out to rural America and see how the so called "millionaire Joe" lives. Not quite like you think, more like the "average Joe" you mentioned. But you'd have to look at all the locals and try to pick out the "boys with money" first, and good luck. I think our local coffee shop crowd would be a bit of an eye opener for you.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 03:47 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
I know how the average millionaire lives, and they buy groceries too, I guess your linear mind missed that point. But the average millionaire also buys expensive items as well. And that practice amongst enough of them, easily surpasses the average Joe's spending, though Average Joe spends a higher percentage.
you need to get out more if you think that what I said is not true, not everyone made their million on government subsidy and has to dress down so they don't get their ass kicked by farm hands drinking PBR
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 04:16 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
I know how the average millionaire lives
| Ozark |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 06:17 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
I know how the average millionaire lives
I've always admired people who have money, but you wouldn't know it.
I think it shows maturity and responsibility for such folks to drive older cars, dress no better than anybody else, and not flaunt it. The satisfaction would be in not having financial worries, knowing you could buy anything you wanted, and knowing you don't owe a penny to anybody.
The people who show-off with expensive toys and live the lifestyle of the rich and famous are usually up to their asses in debt, in my experience. They're trying to prove something and they prob'ly got little d!cks too, but I wouldn't know about that.
That's why I kinda like that sales tax plan, though I think it has some flaws. It would, at least, benefit some smart people and penalize idiots, and that's exactly opposite to most tax schemes.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 08:59 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
again, it's not flaunting your wealth if you spend more than average Joe
let me explain, Millionaire Joe needs the same things Average Joe needs, so the two buy all of the same things, Millionaire Joe and Average Joe have different wants, there we have some differences, yet if you honestly looked at what the actual spending habits of the average millionaire versus the average Joe you will find THAT WHILE THE AVERAGE JOE SPENDS A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF HIS INCOME, THE AVERAGE MILLIONAIRE STILL SPENDS MORE MONEY PER YEAR.
Your foolish argument that the millionaire spends his money in another country or invests his money in the stock market or does this or that, while is partially true is nothing more than class envy, an argument of the Democrats
THAT'S WHY HB IS SUCH A LIBERAL HE WANTS TO TELL PEOPLE HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE HE IS AGAINST A SALES TAX BECAUSE HIS GUBBAMINT CHECK CASHING ASS IS AFRAID IN HIS DEMENTIA YEARS
| Vogi |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 01:28 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
THAT WHILE THE AVERAGE JOE SPENDS A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF HIS INCOME, THE AVERAGE MILLIONAIRE STILL SPENDS MORE MONEY PER YEAR.
The second part I might believe even if I read it on the interenet. The first part...
I forgot to mention this...want to take a guess on how many new millionaires we have around here because of their investment in ethanol?
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 01:54 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
so you don't believe a person with a smaller income ends up spending a larger percentage of his income than a person with a larger income does? But you at least admit a millionaire ends up spending more money in a year than an average Joe.
You're part idiot, but at least you got the last part right
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 01:56 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"I forgot to mention this...want to take a guess on how many new millionaires we have around here because of their investment in ethanol?"--Vogi
I hope for their sake they are smart enough to diversify their investments so as to not hang it all on a failed fuel
| Vogi |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 04:13 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
"I forgot to mention this...want to take a guess on how many new millionaires we have around here because of their investment in ethanol?"--Vogi
I hope for their sake they are smart enough to diversify their investments so as to not hang it all on a failed fuel
You never know about those county boys, you seem to think they aren't to smart.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 04:23 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
they aren't if they stick everything in ethanol
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 04:46 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
THE AVERAGE MILLIONAIRE STILL SPENDS MORE MONEY PER YEAR.
Very profound, Rosie Dorkweed has finally made a statement that is correct.But it does nothing to address the question of whether a national sales tax is realistic.
Is a National sales tax fair, yes would it work, NO! The reality is that as long as you have a society that allows you to make and spend your money, creating huge differences in wealth, you have to have a support system that matches it in principle, there is no free lunch. In order to support the system that creates the opportunity for wealth, you have to have higher dues for the elite club that achieves the most success, it a cost of doing business.
A national sales tax would stand alone until the first economic crisis, then when sales fell off drastically and the treasury started drying up, congress would be right back adding on more taxes. The same event under a sliding flat tax on income wouldn't suffer near as much because salaries and employment would be aided by the private sectors capital. While this would mean some private capital going to federal coffers, it doesn't stop there, but continues its cycle and returns to private capital.
Whats really unfair about our tax isn't as much the income tax as it is the deductions and the hundreds of semi hidden specific tax's lying in wait.
Get rid of the specific taxes, create a sliding flat income tax so simple anyone can figure it and you cut the IRS to a skeleton crew, save tax payers a fortune by eliminating part time tax preparers which eliminates their unemployment payments.
It ain't rocket science if you think outside the box, and realize that there will continue to be a federal budget to meet.
| Vogi |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 04:51 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
they aren't if they stick everything in ethanol
The only thing a county boy is gonna stick everything he has into is his ol' lady or the neighbors.
Well, and maybe his old truck.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 06:20 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"has finally made a statement that is correct"--HB
I said that in the first place dumbass, you're just too damn stupid to comprehend a damn sentence as is generally evidenced in your damn nonsensical replies
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 06:20 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"The only thing a county boy is gonna stick everything he has into is his ol' lady"--Vogi
I take it back you are stupid
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 06:25 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"Is a National sales tax fair, yes would it work, NO! The reality is that as long as you have a society that allows you to make and spend your money, creating huge differences in wealth, you have to have a support system that matches it in principle, there is no free lunch. In order to support the system that creates the opportunity for wealth, you have to have higher dues for the elite club that achieves the most success, it a cost of doing business."--the liberal jackass from Taney County
you have to have higher dues for the elite club that achieves the most success?!?
What a forking liberal, yes indeed punish those who achieve and reward those who fail, that's one hell of a society you want there Helliberal
and of course I love the fact that you have admitted you were wrong without admitting it, by finally agreeing that a sales tax is fair, before you argued it wasn't fair because a rich person wouldn't spend enough and it would be on the backs of those poor down-trodden failures
what a damn liberal
how long till you change your stance again Tonto? Typical liberal can't take anything they say at their word because they can't be held accountable for anything
damn liberal
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 06:26 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
Hellbender you're a fukking joke
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 06:29 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"A national sales tax would stand alone until the first economic crisis, then when sales fell off drastically and the treasury started drying up, congress would be right back adding on more taxes. The same event under a sliding flat tax on income wouldn't suffer near as much because salaries and employment would be aided by the private sectors capital. While this would mean some private capital going to federal coffers, it doesn't stop there, but continues its cycle and returns to private capital.
Whats really unfair about our tax isn't as much the income tax as it is the deductions and the hundreds of semi hidden specific tax's lying in wait.
Get rid of the specific taxes, create a sliding flat income tax so simple anyone can figure it and you cut the IRS to a skeleton crew, save tax payers a fortune by eliminating part time tax preparers which eliminates their unemployment payments.
It ain't rocket science if you think outside the box, and realize that there will continue to be a federal budget to meet."--HB
your tax punishes people for doing something they should be doing for society's benefit
I don't worry about the government having to do with less, that's what liberals like you worry about, first financial crisis and the government has to tighten its belt, boy that would be a damn shame wouldn't it.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 07:31 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
You're not a conservative Rosie, I don't know why you would think you are. You're an Anarchist with governing concepts that cave men rejected, in a word, retarded.
Your concept that workers should be punished because they haven't risen to the levels of those in supervision or investment is asinine. You need both moron, and you need both to feel they are getting their fair share, and no it doesn't have to be the same.
You can't call anyone conservative or liberal, you don't understand the concepts.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 07:54 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"Your concept that workers should be punished"--HB
that's quite the extrapolation jackass, figures though for a liberal
no they won't be punished, they can punish themselves by buying so much that they create a problem on their own, but otherwise a sales tax is a tax of choice, dumbass
"to feel they are getting their fair share"--HB
Feelings, I'm getting taxed to the hilt for your fukking feelings! Go have a cry session with Ellen that ought to make your damn liberal ass feel better
you know why you'll never beat me in a debate Hellbender, I'm selling the pure conservatism and you are nothing but a jackass in elephant's clothing
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 07:58 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"You can't call anyone conservative or liberal, you don't understand the concepts."--Hellbender
a liberal wants a huge government that controls every aspect of our lives
a conservative wants a limited government that performs specific, limited tasks and leaves individuals to their own ingenuity
you are nothing but a liberal at every turn since July when confronted with a way to lessen the governmental grip on our lives you have argued for the government to maintain or increase its power
you have no concept of control in the hands of the local government and the states, none whatsoever, sure you pay it lip service but when the chit hits the fan you sit there with your damn handout begging for a federal nipple to suckle upon
Damn liberal
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 08:45 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
how long does it take you to type something, trust me, you'd do better to just stop before you get pummeled again
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 08:56 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
a conservative wants a limited government that performs specific, limited tasks and leaves individuals to their own ingenuity
So you want them to do nothing, unless of course we give them the public lands, then they can take care of those.
You can't reduce taxes to the point it interferes with living, you can reduce it to the point that sacrifice is equal.
The first feeds right into the Democrats hands, it only spreads the belief that some aren't paying their fair share.
When sacrifice is level, like it or not there's no fuel for a class separation.
This is an old concept that wasn't brought about in some big city in Illinois, but in the small towns and farms who got it from the concept of church tithes.
If one farmer was more successful than others in the same environment, he wasn't hated or despised, but when it came time to help a neighbor, knowing he had more to spare, he was expected to help more. This didn't apply to the farmer who got drunk and burned his barn down, but to those in real need, a farmer who lost his barn to a tornado or fire, illness or a crippling injury.
A sales tax doesn't nor will it ever equate to a fair share, not when it starts at the basics of survival and taps that first.
| duko™ |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 09:08 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
thats a pretty chitty example if you ask me.....maybe the farmer that had to eat peanut butter sammiches and ramen noodles for a year ought to look into a different occupation instead of relying on his neighbor farmer who knows what the hell he's doing and therefore had something to show for it.
Or, he should have saved enough from his good years to cover for his bad years.. not rely on someone else who was smart enough to already do so
duko
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 09:47 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
But that ain't the way its worked is it? We're not talking about propping up a piss poor farmer.
Quote:
but to those in real need, a farmer who lost his barn to a tornado or fire, illness or a crippling injury.
I hope you didn't go to school with Liberty, he sees things that aren't there too.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 09:55 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
insurance is a private market solution to making that farmer financially whole again
why is the government needed to help him rebuild a barn?
I got news for you, they don't even do that, they simply offer low interest loans
you're way off the damn reservation Tonto, I'm not even sure Hillary can reel you back into her fold
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 10:11 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"A sales tax doesn't nor will it ever equate to a fair share, not when it starts at the basics of survival and taps that first."--Helliberal
who the hell told you life was fair?
Damn, get over it, they lied to you
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 10:15 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
You should read your own chit Rosie.
Quote:
I got news for you, they don't even do that, they simply offer low interest loans
Its the same thing dummy!
Let me see if I can make the concept more clear, when Cro-Magnon packed up and headed to a new cave, the bigger ones carried more, because they could while still putting out the same amount of stress individually.
My idea of a civilized tax would tax equally based on avoiding it being to the level of punishment for anyone. Yours wants the lower income young people mashed down so hard financially they can never rise.
I assume, because its the way you think, that when the little girl next to you on the pew gives a nickle, so do you, cause it ain't your fault she ain't got anymore money and you want it even.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 10:18 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up the children
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/19/07 10:19 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"I assume, because its the way you think, that when the little girl next to you on the pew gives a nickle, so do you, cause it ain't your fault she ain't got anymore money and you want it even."--Helliberal
the church doesn't reach into my pocket while holding a gun to my head either, the church deals in charity
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION JACKASS, THEY AREN'T THERE TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR DAMN MISTAKES
| Ozark |
| (member) |
| 10/20/07 06:20 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
I watched a Mike Huckabee interview on TV last night - and he explained the "fair tax", the general sales tax he'd use to replace other taxes.
Boy, that would be a good, GOOD way to do it. As an added bonus, Huckabee says there's an estimated one trillion dollars hiding overseas right now to avoid U.S. income taxes on investments. With the fair tax, much of that money should come back to the U.S.
I think the system is far too screwed up and corrupt now to ever adopt the fair tax or to elect Huckabee as President. That's too bad.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/20/07 11:22 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Someone explain to me how a sales tax can be more fair than a flat income tax?
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 01:13 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
two things HB, it is as fair as a flat income tax and it does not punish you for doing what you should be doing, going out and earning a living
America should get away from a punitive tax system
income and property taxes punish you for doing what you should do in America, have a job and own property
Why should a government punish the people through taxation?
A sales tax always offers a choice to the taxpayer that income taxes don't.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 01:46 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
it does not punish you for doing what you should be doing, going out and earning a living
How does a flat income tax do that?
Quote:
income and property taxes punish you for doing what you should do in America, have a job and own property
We're not talking about property taxes, stay on the subject. How does a flat income punish.
Quote:
A sales tax always offers a choice to the taxpayer that income taxes don't.
Using your mentality, which isn't easy for those of us with some sanity, a sales tax punishes you for having to eat, needing protection from the elements, and for not working close enough to home that you can walk. Is that about right Rosie?
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 01:52 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
what did the government do to deserve money straight off the top of your paycheck?
if you remove income tax as a possibility then you can't have a national political party that eventually turns it into a graduated tax system.
a sales tax is the only tax that would stop them from further punishing the achievers in society
the rich pay 84 percent of all the taxes in America right now, and that is because of the income tax having brackets
they can't bracket a sales tax
the only people for a continued income tax are people who have a vested interest in it remaining complicated or it remaining in place to punish achievement or what achievement really means, hard work.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 01:54 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
your choice HB 23 percent of what you buy or 50 percent of what you make, it's a simple argument
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 03:13 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
if you remove income tax as a possibility then you can't have a national political party that eventually turns it into a graduated tax system.
Thats just a pipe dream, you obviously weren't around when sales taxes were less than 1%, the had plastic Mills that were used to pay the taxes that were $.001.
That argument has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Quote:
your choice HB 23 percent of what you buy or 50 percent of what you make, it's a simple argument
Your answers continue to make no sense. You're telling me that 23% of what I and others Americans buy, will equal 50% of earnings?
Can't wait to see how you wiggle out of that statement.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 04:48 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
no need to wiggle out of it, that's the Fair Tax proposal and that other figure 50%(though somewhat low) is what Americans pay in taxes today
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 04:49 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
I'd wiggle into it by getting rid of the national forests, HUD, FDA, Department of Education, USDA, and the Commerce Department
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 04:50 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
if the government wants to provide services such as NOAA in Commerce and FWS in the Interior Department they can operate those institutions on fees, National Parks the same way
Any wilderness designations, since you say they can't be developed anyway, don't require government designation and protection
| Ozark |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 05:14 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Hellbender said:
sales taxes were less than 1%, they had plastic Mills that were used to pay the taxes that were $.001.
You're showing your age, Hellbender - Missouri Mills are something I hadn't thought about for a while.
The red ones were $.001, the green ones were $.002. They were so worthless the folks gave them to us kids to play with. I found some put away in a box a few months ago - but the plastic they were made of is so cheap they've curled up now.
Missouri used to have some unique ways, and I miss 'em. We used to come here on vacation to see the family, and it was hard to remember you couldn't legally make a right turn on a red light in MO after stopping. It still seems to me like MO ought to have white-on-maroon license plates.
When we moved back here 17 years ago, I was disappointed. I was kinda looking forward to having to paint my name and address on the front fender of my pickup truck.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 05:22 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Doesn't the Fair Tax Proposal call for giving money back to some?
I don't care whether we pay 45% or whatever, how is that going to be replaced by 23%? It don't compute!
Whats in your 50%, is the 7-8% state and local in there? Gas taxes, phone taxes, property, personnel, vehicle license, and all those I've forgotten or don't know about?
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 05:27 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Its been awhile, thats for sure. Now who would have thought that that tax would reach the 4 or 5% it is today.
I was thinking one of them was $.005 however?
Quote:
but the plastic they were made of is so cheap they've curled up now.
I don't think it was cheap, its just that plastic wasn't well developed yet.
I'm sure I missed out on some "plastics" growing up here, but I don't remember much, Naugahyde (sp?) was probably the biggest.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 05:32 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Any wilderness designations, since you say they can't be developed anyway
Where do you get all this crap, can't be developed for what?
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 05:38 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
Missouri used to have some unique ways, and I miss 'em
Thats true, this whole area, including parts of AR, OK, and KS was kind of jumped over, too many trees and hills for civilized people to live in.
Much of Missouri is still behind in many ways, but I can't see that most of the improvements have brought any better living conditions, in fact the argument could be made they're worse.
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 06:09 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"Where do you get all this crap, can't be developed for what?"--HB
hellbender if the forests can't be thinned for a profit because they are so remote how can the wildernesses be developed?
your bullchit argument come back to bite you in the ass
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 06:10 AM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
"It don't compute!"--Helliberal
not for some monster government you want in place to take care of you
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 04:41 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Quote:
hellbender if the forests can't be thinned for a profit because they are so remote how can the wildernesses be developed?
Try to overcome your ADD long enough to absorb this, it would take more personnel than any company would commit, to thin all the forest. I didn't say anything about remote Rosie, its size, SIZE, millions of acres according to you.
The problem here is that this argument is endless, because you have no comprehension of the forest, logging, or the timber industry.
Quote:
They can't bracket a sales tax.
You've got to be kidding me!
Are you going to answer the questions?
Is there or is there not a refund in the Fair Tax?
Who's going to police smuggling, bartering, and other transactions that would have to be controlled? The IRS under another name?
| Liberty |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 05:04 PM |
|
Re: Taxes
|
just like a Democrat, trying to brand any new promising way to fund the government as a boogey man that will turn everyone into evaders.
| Hellbender |
| (member) |
| 10/21/07 08:13 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Taxes
|
Just like you to defend your stance by avoiding any legitimate questions with rambling bullchit as a response.