Sequester
-
Because a "sales tax only" is a bad idea, Leg.
A 10% sales tax based on 2012 consumer spending would yield roughly the same as personal income tax receipts of the same year.
Adjust corporate tax structure so that loopholes close as Ryan/Romney suggested. They currently account for 1/3 of income tax receipts. That could increase to 1/2 without much fuss.
Based on our current "spend what you don't have" culture I'd bet my kingdom (see?) that the sales tax receipts would surpass current income tax receipts without even breaking a sweat. Keeping more of what you make? History shows that boosts spending at least and probably spurs some investment.
This eliminates the financial caste system of our country and the political horseshit that goes along with it.
A 10% sales tax based on 2012 consumer spending would yield roughly the same as personal income tax receipts of the same year.
Adjust corporate tax structure so that loopholes close as Ryan/Romney suggested. They currently account for 1/3 of income tax receipts. That could increase to 1/2 without much fuss.
Based on our current "spend what you don't have" culture I'd bet my kingdom (see?) that the sales tax receipts would surpass current income tax receipts without even breaking a sweat. Keeping more of what you make? History shows that boosts spending at least and probably spurs some investment.
This eliminates the financial caste system of our country and the political horseshit that goes along with it.
Exactly. Everyone needs to contribute. We don't now.
I think if more people were involved in paying for their own benefits, et cetera, they might think harder about the taxing and spending.
But hey, that's the idea right?
As to the sales tax I can see the benefits.
Just remember how easy it is to bump it up a half or a whole percent.
Of course if someone actually had to pay it it might be a concern, huh? Like if you don't smoke a cigarette tax sounds like a fine idea.
And most states have 6, 7 or 8 already right?
A couple things I do like but could probably live without in a grande bargain are these:
I like mortgage interest deductions I think it promotes home ownership which I believe to be a positive.
Eliminating that deduction could be a potential nightmare for the housing market.
And I like keeping cap gains low enough to spur investment.
It's a good idea to have some equity in life and not rely solely on Big Brother.
I know big brother doesn't see it that way but...
And Heck, you don't have to be deranged to see that things are fucked up.
WSS
-
Not to mention no more Amazon.com...
WSS
-
It would put all those tax accountants and preparers out of business. I'm all for a National Sales Tax. Do away with the pain in the ass filing every year. Everyone pays the same amount. The Government gets the money immediately. No more April headaches.
-
no one wants to touch the tax code -
it is swollen to ridiculous recessive language that I doubt any loophole
that is on the chopping block will have any effect on the overall debt.
They'll just want more direct taxation anyway! twisted reason? it worked in the past, it'll work down the road...
trouble is, we lost around 50 million taxpayers through abortion since 73 alone.....
so we also have 20 million less taxpaying workers- getting unemployment assistance instead.
I like Dr. Ben Carsons simple flat rate system along with what Diehard, Legacy and WSS about simplifying tax rates....
but we also need a stronger private business driven economy and less big government IMO
-
Because a "sales tax only" is a bad idea, Leg.
A 10% sales tax based on 2012 consumer spending would yield roughly the same as personal income tax receipts of the same year.
Adjust corporate tax structure so that loopholes close as Ryan/Romney suggested. They currently account for 1/3 of income tax receipts. That could increase to 1/2 without much fuss.
Based on our current "spend what you don't have" culture I'd bet my kingdom (see?) that the sales tax receipts would surpass current income tax receipts without even breaking a sweat. Keeping more of what you make? History shows that boosts spending at least and probably spurs some investment.
This eliminates the financial caste system of our country and the political horseshit that goes along with it.
A 10% sales tax based on 2012 consumer spending would yield roughly the same as personal income tax receipts of the same year.
Adjust corporate tax structure so that loopholes close as Ryan/Romney suggested. They currently account for 1/3 of income tax receipts. That could increase to 1/2 without much fuss.
Based on our current "spend what you don't have" culture I'd bet my kingdom (see?) that the sales tax receipts would surpass current income tax receipts without even breaking a sweat. Keeping more of what you make? History shows that boosts spending at least and probably spurs some investment.
This eliminates the financial caste system of our country and the political horseshit that goes along with it.
National sales taxes have some positives, but I wouldn't want to do it in the way you describe because it'd be hugely regressive. It shifts the tax burden on to the lower and middle classes, and off of the people who can most afford to pay it. Unless you're proposing some ways to mitigate that then all you're doing is figuring out a new way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and on to the poor and middle class.
And how it would eliminate the "financial caste of our country" or "political horseshit" I have no idea. You'll have to explain. You're talking about the battle over tax rates? We don't have an income inequality problem because we have an income tax, and we'd have an even bigger income inequality problem if we shifted to a national sales tax. We'd be making that problem worse.
Again, we've talked about this before, but the reason the tax code is screwed up isn't because we have different rates. The reason the tax code is screwed up is because of the other 900 pages of complexity. The rate structure isn't the complicated part.
But in general I'm all for shifting taxes away from things like income and investment and on to other things. I'd prefer pollution to consumption, but could get on board for both. It depends on how you do it. Right now, this is really just being proposed by Republican Governors as a way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy, which is the reason they get up in the morning.
-
Meanwhile, the marxist pig in our WH ordered the release of hundreds of jailed illegal immigrants....
because of the sequester that hasn't even happened yet...
the sequester he wanted because he...
wanted to release all the illegals?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/26/illegal-immigrants-released-detention-centers-sequ/
-
And you can't find very many economists who think mortgage interests deductions are a good idea.
-
Here are the tax loopholes and how much they cost. See which ones you want to eliminate, or trim. Pretty soon you'll see why Romney and Ryan wouldn't name which ones they wanted to trim - because they're all popular.
-
Steve, you have to stop saying stuff that isn't true:
"These clowns, your clowns in particular, don't want any restrictions on spending ever for any reason."
This. Is. Not. True.
Go look at what's being proposed and come back to me. Or go look at the deal that was very close to being signed between Obama and Boehner.
The rest of it is more proof that I'm right. You have completely lost your mind, and see everything through this warped "Obama is an evil and power hungry sociopath" lens, just like the most clueless Bush-hater from 2005. Congrats.
Steve, you have to stop saying stuff that isn't true:
"These clowns, your clowns in particular, don't want any restrictions on spending ever for any reason."
This. Is. Not. True.
Go look at what's being proposed and come back to me. Or go look at the deal that was very close to being signed between Obama and Boehner.
The rest of it is more proof that I'm right. You have completely lost your mind, and see everything through this warped "Obama is an evil and power hungry sociopath" lens, just like the most clueless Bush-hater from 2005. Congrats.
Come on man, you sound like a idiot, and I don't think you are.
All the President proposes is tax increases but willy worms around when it comes to cutting spending.
Tax all the rich people making more than 100K a year at 100% and your still not going to balance anything.
Oh, by the way....100k a year isn't rich.
-
Here are the tax loopholes and how much they cost. See which ones you want to eliminate, or trim. Pretty soon you'll see why Romney and Ryan wouldn't name which ones they wanted to trim - because they're all popular.
Here are the tax loopholes and how much they cost. See which ones you want to eliminate, or trim. Pretty soon you'll see why Romney and Ryan wouldn't name which ones they wanted to trim - because they're all popular.
Good, you agree, you can't cut most or all of those. All have benefit that impact other areas.
You have to cut spending....the Federal Government is a sham.
-
The spending, especially entitlement spending, has far more - and deeper - support than any of these tax exclusions, so good luck.
-
A 10% sales tax based on 2012 consumer spending would yield roughly the same as personal income tax receipts of the same year.
Adjust corporate tax structure so that loopholes close as Ryan/Romney suggested. They currently account for 1/3 of income tax receipts. That could increase to 1/2 without much fuss.
Based on our current "spend what you don't have" culture I'd bet my kingdom (see?) that the sales tax receipts would surpass current income tax receipts without even breaking a sweat. Keeping more of what you make? History shows that boosts spending at least and probably spurs some investment.
This eliminates the financial caste system of our country and the political horseshit that goes along with it.
National sales taxes have some positives, but I wouldn't want to do it in the way you describe because it'd be hugely regressive. It shifts the tax burden on to the lower and middle classes, and off of the people who can most afford to pay it. Unless you're proposing some ways to mitigate that then all you're doing is figuring out a new way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and on to the poor and middle class.
And how it would eliminate the "financial caste of our country" or "political horseshit" I have no idea. You'll have to explain. You're talking about the battle over tax rates? We don't have an income inequality problem because we have an income tax, and we'd have an even bigger income inequality problem if we shifted to a national sales tax. We'd be making that problem worse.
Again, we've talked about this before, but the reason the tax code is screwed up isn't because we have different rates. The reason the tax code is screwed up is because of the other 900 pages of complexity. The rate structure isn't the complicated part.
But in general I'm all for shifting taxes away from things like income and investment and on to other things. I'd prefer pollution to consumption, but could get on board for both. It depends on how you do it. Right now, this is really just being proposed by Republican Governors as a way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy, which is the reason they get up in the morning.
National sales taxes have some positives, but I wouldn't want to do it in the way you describe because it'd be hugely regressive. It shifts the tax burden on to the lower and middle classes, and off of the people who can most afford to pay it. Unless you're proposing some ways to mitigate that then all you're doing is figuring out a new way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and on to the poor and middle class.
And how it would eliminate the "financial caste of our country" or "political horseshit" I have no idea. You'll have to explain. You're talking about the battle over tax rates? We don't have an income inequality problem because we have an income tax, and we'd have an even bigger income inequality problem if we shifted to a national sales tax. We'd be making that problem worse.
Again, we've talked about this before, but the reason the tax code is screwed up isn't because we have different rates. The reason the tax code is screwed up is because of the other 900 pages of complexity. The rate structure isn't the complicated part.
But in general I'm all for shifting taxes away from things like income and investment and on to other things. I'd prefer pollution to consumption, but could get on board for both. It depends on how you do it. Right now, this is really just being proposed by Republican Governors as a way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy, which is the reason they get up in the morning.
Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?
Lets start there.
It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).
-
Regarding the financial caste system/ political horseshit statement:
No more "championing the middle class" or "party of the wealthy" campaign pandering bullshit that doesn't do anybody any good. That disappears when everybody starts paying the same. No more taxation without representation.
-
National sales taxes have some positives, but I wouldn't want to do it in the way you describe because it'd be hugely regressive. It shifts the tax burden on to the lower and middle classes, and off of the people who can most afford to pay it. Unless you're proposing some ways to mitigate that then all you're doing is figuring out a new way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and on to the poor and middle class.
And how it would eliminate the "financial caste of our country" or "political horseshit" I have no idea. You'll have to explain. You're talking about the battle over tax rates? We don't have an income inequality problem because we have an income tax, and we'd have an even bigger income inequality problem if we shifted to a national sales tax. We'd be making that problem worse.
Again, we've talked about this before, but the reason the tax code is screwed up isn't because we have different rates. The reason the tax code is screwed up is because of the other 900 pages of complexity. The rate structure isn't the complicated part.
But in general I'm all for shifting taxes away from things like income and investment and on to other things. I'd prefer pollution to consumption, but could get on board for both. It depends on how you do it. Right now, this is really just being proposed by Republican Governors as a way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy, which is the reason they get up in the morning.
Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?
Lets start there.
It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).
Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?
Lets start there.
It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).
They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.
As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.
-
Regressive Tax Explained
Everyone pays the same amount of tax dollars with a regressive tax. Therefore, people with a lower income pay a larger percentage of their income under this type of tax. The Internal Revenue Service provides this example: If the tax amount is $2,000, a person who earns $10,000 a year pays 20 percent of his income to pay the $2,000. A person who earns $50,000 pays 4 percent, and a person who earns $100,000 pays 2 percent of his income to pay the $2,000.
Regressive Tax Examples
An example of a regressive tax is the sales tax. Money spent to buy essential and nonessential items that have a sales tax of 7 percent, for example, hits those with a lower income harder than it hits higher-income individuals. Fees are another example of a regressive tax, because lower-income individuals pay a larger percentage of their income for them. Examples are toll roads, licenses, admission to museums and parks, and parking. A third example of a regressive tax is an excise tax, which is a tax on the production or sale of certain commodities such as alcohol, cigarettes, firearms, gasoline, air travel and telephone services. Excise taxes are typically hidden taxes because they are incorporated into the price of the commodity without consumers' realizing it.
-
Regarding the financial caste system/ political horseshit statement:
No more "championing the middle class" or "party of the wealthy" campaign pandering bullshit that doesn't do anybody any good. That disappears when everybody starts paying the same. No more taxation without representation.
Regarding the financial caste system/ political horseshit statement:
No more "championing the middle class" or "party of the wealthy" campaign pandering bullshit that doesn't do anybody any good. That disappears when everybody starts paying the same. No more taxation without representation.
I don't think that gets rid of any of that, even a little bit, nor do I worry so much about its existence.
-
You know who needs to pay taxes? The military. They're operating well over capacity last I heard (at least the navy is) and they're income isn't taxed. I wasn't complaining when I was in, but really its not paying your fair share.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
So, heck, are you advocating we put an end to your list of regressive taxes or not?
Cysco, actually that's just kind of a pay cut for military right?
Since it comes out of tax revenue anyway it would just add paperwork to a reduction in pay.
WSS
-
Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?
Lets start there.
It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).
They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.
As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.
They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.
As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.
Spend a larger portion of their "income" being the operative word. The "wealthy" rarely have an income. And thats why they arent paying taxes on it. It's not til you start heading into the "top 10%-4%" category (small business owners) where you see this "upper class" as they are incorrectly referred to as relying on income. Which they routinely give over half of it back every year in taxes.
Here's how the burden shakes out per the CBO:
And here's what Americans will be paying come April 15:
How will this shift the burden if they're already paying 10%? The answer is, it wont.
-
I'm not sure I follow you, but I think you're making this harder than it needs to be.
If you have someone who is a single parent with two kids who only makes $26,000 a year, they're not going to be paying any income tax. They'll be paying payroll taxes, state taxes, gas taxes, and a host of others. But she's likely exempt from income taxes because she doesn't make enough.
Now replace the income tax with a federal sales tax on everything she buys. Does her tax bill go up or down? Obviously, it goes up. And this is how the tax burden gets shifted to people with lower incomes. This is why it's regressive.
Now, some people, like Steve, thinks this gives her some skin in the game and makes her a better citizen somehow. I've never understood how that works. I don't see how it changes her behavior at all, except that it takes more money out of her pocketbook than she otherwise would have.
The idea that if you take someone who pays a bunch of different taxes, but doesn't make enough to pay the income tax, and then you make them pay the income tax, or a federal sales tax, that this somehow transforms their behavior ...I just don't get it. And if the idea is that now we'd have more people who were "involved in paying for their own benefits, et cetera, they might think harder about the taxing and spending" is just poorly expressed angst.
That single mother is likely fairly stuck in her station in life, with few opportunities for real advancement. That's the reality. If she's suddenly starts paying additional federal taxes, it doesn't suddenly make her more qualified, or educated, or virtuous. It just makes her and her children less financially secure.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login