Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
Democrats are against this, it would put too much burden on the po folk in their minds 
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
duko™
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3442
Loc: east mo
|
|
it can be any worse than it already is...
duko
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
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
Reged: 01/06/06
Posts: 13
Loc: Central MO
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
I just made GUS a three star general after that
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
"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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
Edited by Hellbender (10/16/07 03:17 PM)
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
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
Reged: 01/06/06
Posts: 13
Loc: Central MO
|
|
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.
Edited by GUS (10/16/07 04:09 PM)
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
"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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
duko™
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3442
Loc: east mo
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3442
Loc: east mo
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 2464
Loc: Kingdom of Callaway
|
|
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
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
Boortz is second only to Limbaugh on knowing what the hell is up
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
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.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
