NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you all think about getting rid of the IRS and useing sales taxes.

2 reasons

1) sales tax is regressive, it hurts the poor more than the rich

2) more importantly, they NEVER get rid of a tax. they would just ADD the national sales tax and KEEP the irs. those govt people think that finding a NEW tax is somehow not raising taxes. trust me on this one, they would do BOTH.

I would love to see the IRS abolished. It would be one useless government agency down, a couple more to go. How is national sales tax regressive? It seems like to me that rich people buy more than poor people, so won't they have to pay more tax. Sorry if I introduced logic where its not wanted.

I would love to see the IRS abolished. It would be one useless government agency down, a couple more to go. How is national sales tax regressive? It seems like to me that rich people buy more than poor people, so won't they have to pay more tax. Sorry if I introduced logic where its not wanted.
You think that the rich don't save some of their money? If you introduce a flat sales tax, the poor will end up spending more money on taxes and saving less, while the rich will just end up saving the extra money...no taxes on that.

What is wrong with the IRS? You're going to have to have an agency overviewing the taxes anyway.

I would love to see the IRS abolished. It would be one useless government agency down, a couple more to go. How is national sales tax regressive? It seems like to me that rich people buy more than poor people, so won't they have to pay more tax. Sorry if I introduced logic where its not wanted.
But they can afford it. Generally poor people, who can only buy what is needed for life, are raped by it.

The rich may pay more, but the poor are hit hardest.

Someone's gonna have to make sure tax is being paid, may as well be an agency whose acronym sounds like arse if said right.

Getting rid of this system is just bad rhetoric designed to gain voter sympathy (who on the whole dislike the IRS).

Agreed, it punishes the poor, but there is more:

O.K. Lets say we are switching to a sales based tax System next September. What would happen?

Ok, consumable demand would increase a LOT in August, as consumers buy what they can, espescially big ticket items that last a long time, like cars. Increased demand leads to inflation, RAPID inflation. Then in September exactly the opposite happens, and consumer demand is WAY DOWN, as consumers try not to buy things they now don't need, and this lasts for quite some time, as all those long term items are not in any great demand for at least 5-10 years. What follows is massive layoffs and yes, you guessed it: a depression of significant magnitude.

Yeah, that would be great for the country

From what I gather, income tax is actually supposed to be voluntary in the US, but I wouldn't like to test the theory.

I'd like to see the IRS gone, but there's always something they're going to set up as a substitute. We're still not going to be allowed to keep our money. How would the government support itself, after all?

From what I gather, income tax is actually supposed to be voluntary in the US, but I wouldn't like to test the theory.

I'd like to see the IRS gone, but there's always something they're going to set up as a substitute. We're still not going to be allowed to keep our money. How would the government support itself, after all?
No, its not. Trust me.

Getting rid of this system is just bad rhetoric designed to gain voter sympathy (who on the whole dislike the IRS).

Agreed, it punishes the poor, but there is more:

O.K. Lets say we are switching to a sales based tax System next September. What would happen?

Ok, consumable demand would increase a LOT in August, as consumers buy what they can, espescially big ticket items that last a long time, like cars. Increased demand leads to inflation, RAPID inflation. Then in September exactly the opposite happens, and consumer demand is WAY DOWN, as consumers try not to buy things they now don't need, and this lasts for quite some time, as all those long term items are not in any great demand for at least 5-10 years. What follows is massive layoffs and yes, you guessed it: a depression of significant magnitude.

Yeah, that would be great for the country

That's ridiculous. Demand could possibly go down, but it could also go up.

Let's say you're single and make $65,000 a year. Your marginal tax rate is 25%, and you pay $8,350 in taxes after you take your standard deduction (for ease of this example).

That leaves you with $56,650 left to spend on everything else. Now, most people in this income range spend all they have, so that's $56,650 in spending/consumption.

We'll assume a 10% VAT on all consumption (even though it won't be on everything). So you make $65,000 and spend $56,650. Your tax is $5,665, and you keep $59,335. What do you do with that extra $2500 or so?

Spend it: more government revenue, more utility for you
Save it: government gets its money, you get to save.

I also dream of a world without taxes, but I don't see it happening with the government in power.

I would love to see the IRS abolished. It would be one useless government agency down, a couple more to go. How is national sales tax regressive? It seems like to me that rich people buy more than poor people, so won't they have to pay more tax. Sorry if I introduced logic where its not wanted.Logic, but bad logic. The rich may buy more, but they spend a smaller percentage of their income. Ergo, a smaller percentage of a larger income goes into the tax revenue. It'd be like if you turned the current tax brackets upside down.

That's ridiculous. Demand could possibly go down, but it could also go up.

Let's say you're single and make $65,000 a year. Your marginal tax rate is 25%, and you pay $8,350 in taxes after you take your standard deduction (for ease of this example).

That leaves you with $56,650 left to spend on everything else. Now, most people in this income range spend all they have, so that's $56,650 in spending/consumption.

We'll assume a 10% VAT on all consumption (even though it won't be on everything). So you make $65,000 and spend $56,650. Your tax is $5,665, and you keep $59,335. What do you do with that extra $2500 or so?

Spend it: more government revenue, more utility for you
Save it: government gets its money, you get to save.

A 25% VAT would be a more valid comparison

That's ridiculous. Demand could possibly go down, but it could also go up.

Let's say you're single and make $65,000 a year. Your marginal tax rate is 25%, and you pay $8,350 in taxes after you take your standard deduction (for ease of this example).

That leaves you with $56,650 left to spend on everything else. Now, most people in this income range spend all they have, so that's $56,650 in spending/consumption.

We'll assume a 10% VAT on all consumption (even though it won't be on everything). So you make $65,000 and spend $56,650. Your tax is $5,665, and you keep $59,335. What do you do with that extra $2500 or so?

Spend it: more government revenue, more utility for you
Save it: government gets its money, you get to save.


No, it is not ridiculous. Durable goods would be hoarded beforehand, and OF COURSE the demand grows weaker later. Why on earth would you buy another fridge? Consumables would make a return, but the market for drable goods would suffer a hit the likes this country has never seen. Think it through.

Either way though, even if their is a CHANCE that it wouldn't completely devestate our economy, I am NOT willing to take the chance. Since most of the economists I have listened to are pretty sure about it, and even the dissenters sem to agree that there is a chance that the plan would be a monsterous mistake, I vote we don't chance it lol.

That siad, who is the one that is proposing we adopt a more French like socialistic tax system?

No, it is not ridiculous. Durable goods would be hoarded beforehand, and OF COURSE the demand grows weaker later. Why on earth would you buy another fridge? Consumables would make a return, but the market for drable goods would suffer a hit the likes this country has never seen. Think it through.

How often do people buy refrigerators anyway? The point of a durable good is that it's supposed to last. As soon as people don't have to pay income taxes, they'll have more disposable income, with which they buy cars and the like.

I'd rather see the IRS shrink, but not simplified. And after watching Dennis Hastert on CNBC, I sort of agree with him. While the US economy is very sucessful, it's the most wasteful on earth. If we put a sales tax on everything except food, clothing, and medicine, I'm sure that our economy would become much more efficient. With the creation of a relatively low flat tax, the American consumer may actually have more buying power. But if we were to trade an income tax in for a $0.50 tax on gasoline, it'll be less of a percentage of most Americans' income, but the consumer will notice, and will try conservation of it. For reasons like this, the economy will be more efficient, allowing Americans to buy more of what they want, and need less resources to do so.

Um note:
1) the IRS and the federal Government do not collect sales tax, that is a state and county thing.

2) Without the IRS this country would colapse.

i seriously doubt the IRS will ever be abolished- although reformed significantly might be a reasonable possibility.

as has been previously states, sales taxes are regressive. although those who buy more pay more, as a percentage of wealth, sales taxes (whether on gas, cigarettes, food, etc) hurt the poor more than the rich.

so sales taxes alone are probably out as a possibility.

a flat tax (remember Forbes's platform a few years ago?) is the "fairest" tax possibility. charge EVERYONE the same percentage of earnings, from whatever source, and everyone's tax burden is "fair," be it 10%, 15%, 25%, whatever.

again, probably not going to happen. Americans are too socialist to allow that sort of thing- while we've left our massively progressive tax systems of the past (and never competed with GB or Sweden) I'm fairly sure we'll maintain the concept of tax brackets. Although the rich recieve far fewer benefits from their taxes compared to the poor, they'll continue to pay more. How much more, I cannot say, and I hope that the gap narrows.

/fuck you, yes, i am part of that wealthiest 2% of Americans. i'm not getting shit value for my taxes.

Um note:
1) the IRS and the federal Government do not collect sales tax, that is a state and county thing.

2) Without the IRS this country would colapse.

Well we didn't have the IRS til the 1930s and we were doing just fine then.

i seriously doubt the IRS will ever be abolished- although reformed significantly might be a reasonable possibility.

as has been previously states, sales taxes are regressive. although those who buy more pay more, as a percentage of wealth, sales taxes (whether on gas, cigarettes, food, etc) hurt the poor more than the rich.

so sales taxes alone are probably out as a possibility.

a flat tax (remember Forbes's platform a few years ago?) is the "fairest" tax possibility. charge EVERYONE the same percentage of earnings, from whatever source, and everyone's tax burden is "fair," be it 10%, 15%, 25%, whatever.

again, probably not going to happen. Americans are too socialist to allow that sort of thing- while we've left our massively progressive tax systems of the past (and never competed with GB or Sweden) I'm fairly sure we'll maintain the concept of tax brackets. Although the rich recieve far fewer benefits from their taxes compared to the poor, they'll continue to pay more. How much more, I cannot say, and I hope that the gap narrows.

/fuck you, yes, i am part of that wealthiest 2% of Americans. i'm not getting shit value for my taxes.
Bullshit, do you drive? Breath? Drink?

Well we didn't have the IRS til the 1930s and we were doing just fine then.
We also didn't have as complex a society and social welfare programs and an orgaized defense oh yeah, and a national budget until the 1930s. Check please?

Um note:
1) the IRS and the federal Government do not collect sales tax, that is a state and county thing.


Is it unconstitutional if the federal government were to create a sales tax?

How often do people buy refrigerators anyway? The point of a durable good is that it's supposed to last. As soon as people don't have to pay income taxes, they'll have more disposable income, with which they buy cars and the like.


I see your point, but there is a flaw in your theory. See, with an impending tax shift to a sales based tax, an inordinate amount of large ticket durable items (refrigs, furniture, cars, etc.) Get bought in the months leading up to the shift. This creates a temporary skyrocketing boom, which causes inflation. The money you say is supposedly saved is not, as Americans are faced paying increased prices AND sales tax on consumables. They at this opoint don't NEED cars etc cause they just bought them. This is what causes the spiral to depression.

Is it unconstitutional if the federal government were to create a sales tax?

That's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure, if they did it would require a BIIIIIG ammendment to the tax code though. Actually, I'm pretty sure they could, but the odds are against it, they would just raise income taxes it's much more efficient to revise current regulations than to make new ones.

CSW,

yes, i drive, breathe and drink.

do the poor pay so much for that same air, roads, or water? no. will i ever recieve any meaningful percentage of my social security witholdings in return? no. will i ever be eligible for medicare? no. do i pay anyway? you better fucking believe it.

CSW,

yes, i drive, breathe and drink.

do the poor pay so much for that same air, roads, or water? no. will i ever recieve any meaningful percentage of my social security witholdings in return? no. will i ever be eligible for medicare? no. do i pay anyway? you better fucking believe it.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.


note that we live in AMERICA, not the USSR. And even communist societies do not and cannot live by that maxim.

note that we live in AMERICA, not the USSR. And even communist societies do not and cannot live by that maxim.

Still the same basic idea that the whole welfare and social security system in this country is based upon.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Please elaborate. This was delared by one of the founding fathers of Democracy. I forget who now. Basically, in a democracy each should pay according to what they CAN. In essence, this makes a sales based tax system by its administration, undemocratic, unless lots of rebates etc are thrown in, as the porrer you go, the more percentage of their income is taxed (middle and lower classes spend more or all of their earned income on goods).

Can you please supply the orator of that quotation?

Please elaborate. This was delared by one of the founding fathers of Democracy. I forget who now. Basically, in a democracy each should pay according to what they CAN. In essence, this makes a sales based tax system by its administration, undemocratic, unless lots of rebates etc are thrown in, as the porrer you go, the more percentage of their income is taxed (middle and lower classes spend more or all of their earned income on goods).

Can you please supply the orator of that quotation?

Karl Marx the German author of the Communist Manifesto.

I also dream of a world without taxes, but I don't see it happening with the government in power.
Any government.

You know, American taxes are much lower than Canadian taxes. While our is progressive (increasing for each income bracket), our poorest are hit harder than American's poorest. The only difference is we have universal health.

No Taxation With Or Without Representation Dangit.

Karl Marx the German author of the Communist Manifesto.
You and I are thinking of different quotes then. Mine comes from like Plato or someone, one of the founders of Democracy, that each citizen should pay according to what they can afford. Eerie if you aren't pulling my leg, that the two quotations are so eerily similar.

Any government.

You know, American taxes are much lower than Canadian taxes. While our is progressive (increasing for each income bracket), our poorest are hit harder than American's poorest. The only difference is we have universal health.

What is the lowest bracket in Canada? It is 10% in the US for the first...$6000 (i think)....

Healthcare, for me anyway, is about $1100/year - but my employer pays for half, so it's not so bad.

That's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure, if they did it would require a BIIIIIG ammendment to the tax code though. Actually, I'm pretty sure they could, but the odds are against it, they would just raise income taxes it's much more efficient to revise current regulations than to make new ones.
I think it is. Some site the 9th amendment banning this, but by using that logic, ALL laws are unconstitutional. Besides, it's contradicted in other parts of the constitution. The 17th amendment also authorizes Congress to set an income tax, and technically, sales taxes are a continuation of income. Besides, a federal sales tax on cigarettes already exists.
Such a major change to the tax code probably won't happen in my lifetime. Many lobbies will balk at it, and Congressmen have many interests when it comes to our Byzantine tax code. However, this doesn't mean that we can't discuss it.

Man, there's a lot of communists on this site, and an equally large number of fascists. There needs to be some kind of middle ground. The fundamental problem with this whole situation is greed. The wealthiest percentage sit on their liquid income, multiplying rather than distributing it to anyone below them. One solution would be to tax more of the income of the wealthy and redistribute that to those who fall below the nation's poverty line. EEEEEEEERRRRRRKKKKKKKK. I'm sorry, did I say something communist? Yes, I did. However, I did not go so far as to say that all those collected taxes should be simply handed out in the form of free assistance or welfare. It should only be as a subsistence to those who have jobs. While a sales tax would be slightly more detrimental to the poor than to the rich (who regardless of what some of you simpletons have said do spend much more than poor people), the poor would still be saving money overall. I'm curious as to the justification that the gentleman has for a stark increase in durable goods consumption. This person simply states this without giving clear reason or evidence for its occurrence. Simply stating something does not make it so. You should go back and sit through Microeconomics 212 one more time there bud. Any increase in mutually beneficial exchange, such as that brought on by a sudden buying surge, is beneficial to the economy and not harmful. I also have to say that I agree with the other gentlemen who asked the very relevant question, "how often do people buy refigerators anyway?" I know I buy one every week or so. Wait, no I don't. I also don't go out and buy a new car every week either, nor would anyone else. What is just as likely to happen, is that people would be afraid that such items were going to be unnaffordable in the future (since the communists... er, I mean democrats and liberals, love to scare everyone into believing that conservative economic policy is bad), and would therefore conserve more of their funds in anticipation of having to pay a greater amount at a later date. The solution to this problem therefore does not lie in obliterating the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax. The solution should be more along the lines of eliminating the income tax for anyone who makes under $200,000.00 per annum, and implementing the sales tax for everyone, regardless of income. That's double taxation for the wealthy, but hey, if we weren't so damn greedy we wouldn't mind helping our fellow Americans now would we? Or maybe we just enjoy standing on their backs. I'm personally hoping that this Wal-Mart situation leads to some corporate reform, like requiring profit sharing programs so that the people who are producing the wealth for these assholes are actually reaping some of the benefit. As a former employee of Wal-mart (at my father's insistence while I was in high school, imagine my embarassment), I hope they get sued into the ground. They've been standing on the backs of 800,000 MEN and women (both, by God) for the last 20 years. As a side note, I found it quite offensive that one of the women suing Wal-Mart was complaining because she only made $11.95 an hour as a CASHIER. This woman worked in Aiken, SC. As a SC native, I'd like to say this. I worked there all 3 years of high school, held a higher ranking position than cashier, and NEVER came close to $11.96 an hour. Hell, even the support managers (lowest on the totem pole) don't make that much. Sorry ladies, but there's no discrimination against women by Wal-Mart, those assholes are discriminating against EVERYBODY.

What do you all think about getting rid of the IRS and useing sales taxes.

even if Income tax is abolished, there will still need to be some kind of agency that collects the sales tax, so there will still be a need for the IRS.

Man, there's a lot of communists on this site, and an equally large number of fascists. There needs to be some kind of middle ground. The fundamental problem with this whole situation is greed. The wealthiest percentage sit on their liquid income, multiplying rather than distributing it to anyone below them. One solution would be to tax more of the income of the wealthy and redistribute that to those who fall below the nation's poverty line. EEEEEEEERRRRRRKKKKKKKK. I'm sorry, did I say something communist? Yes, I did. However, I did not go so far as to say that all those collected taxes should be simply handed out in the form of free assistance or welfare. It should only be as a subsistence to those who have jobs. While a sales tax would be slightly more detrimental to the poor than to the rich (who regardless of what some of you simpletons have said do spend much more than poor people), the poor would still be saving money overall. I'm curious as to the justification that the gentleman has for a stark increase in durable goods consumption. This person simply states this without giving clear reason or evidence for its occurrence. Simply stating something does not make it so. You should go back and sit through Microeconomics 212 one more time there bud. Any increase in mutually beneficial exchange, such as that brought on by a sudden buying surge, is beneficial to the economy and not harmful. I also have to say that I agree with the other gentlemen who asked the very relevant question, "how often do people buy refigerators anyway?" I know I buy one every week or so. Wait, no I don't. I also don't go out and buy a new car every week either, nor would anyone else. What is just as likely to happen, is that people would be afraid that such items were going to be unnaffordable in the future (since the communists... er, I mean democrats and liberals, love to scare everyone into believing that conservative economic policy is bad), and would therefore conserve more of their funds in anticipation of having to pay a greater amount at a later date. The solution to this problem therefore does not lie in obliterating the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax. The solution should be more along the lines of eliminating the income tax for anyone who makes under $200,000.00 per annum, and implementing the sales tax for everyone, regardless of income. That's double taxation for the wealthy, but hey, if we weren't so damn greedy we wouldn't mind helping our fellow Americans now would we? Or maybe we just enjoy standing on their backs. I'm personally hoping that this Wal-Mart situation leads to some corporate reform, like requiring profit sharing programs so that the people who are producing the wealth for these assholes are actually reaping some of the benefit. As a former employee of Wal-mart (at my father's insistence while I was in high school, imagine my embarassment), I hope they get sued into the ground. They've been standing on the backs of 800,000 MEN and women (both, by God) for the last 20 years. As a side note, I found it quite offensive that one of the women suing Wal-Mart was complaining because she only made $11.95 an hour as a CASHIER. This woman worked in Aiken, SC. As a SC native, I'd like to say this. I worked there all 3 years of high school, held a higher ranking position than cashier, and NEVER came close to $11.96 an hour. Hell, even the support managers (lowest on the totem pole) don't make that much. Sorry ladies, but there's no discrimination against women by Wal-Mart, those assholes are discriminating against EVERYBODY.

Ok, before I retake economics, please retake high school English. that paragraph was incredibly difficult to read. Now that we have traded barbs, I will explain what I think it is you need to hear:

The months before a national sales tax occurs, there will be mass consumption of durable goods. Why? Well, I thought this was simple, but I guess not, soooo..... Let's assume you had one tax free sales day a year, would you wait for that day to buy a car or fridge? Damn straight! You would save money! Ok, now the same goes for the months preceding the institution of a national sales tax. The impending tax would cause a surge in durable goods spending, because people would want to save money by avoiding the extra charge. Wouldn't you? OF COURSE!!!!! This spending spree on durable goods, big ticket items that last five or more years, ok? Cars, fridges etc etc.

Follow me so far? Good. That kind of increased spending on big ticket durable items spurs inflation. Even if it doesn't, that's ok, the effects would be the same. Now, we move forward into the sales tax era. If inflation has occurred the cost of consumables has increased, and the average person is finding it harder to make ends meet, not to mention that they are sharing a tougher tax burden anyways.

That increase on durable goods now makes itself felt. Big ticket consumable demands are WAY down, and they are expected to BE way down for a minimum of FIVE YEARS. Factories begin major layoffs, unemployment skyrockets, and we head deeplong into a depression.

Am I a bit clearer here? If I am crazy please tell me so, and tell me why. By the way, this is not my theory, but comes FROM economists. Major shifts in tax bases have devestating effects.

By the way, yes, the rich spend MORE on products than poor people, but a much larger portion of their incomes go to investments, which are non-taxable in a sales tax based society. So where the lower spends up to 100% of their income in the taxable area, the wealthiest are what, 40%, 50%, 80%. Any way you cut it, it is blatantly unfair. The richer you are, the more you benefit, and the poorer, the more you suffer.

To discuss economics you first must understand them:
... The wealthiest percentage sit on their liquid income, multiplying rather than distributing it to anyone below them. . .
Um, I'm not sure what 'liquid' income is, but if you mean liquid assets then I suppose you think the interest fairy just shows up at night and gives them money. Or is it on trees? In order for it to grow it must be invested - either in safe investments like a bank, or a risky investments like a business. Either way it goes towards creating jobs and economic growth. (bank=home loans, jobs made constructing homes plus many other types loans/investments)

So you argument falls flat on it's face. The only way the wealthy can NOT benefit everyone else would be to bury thier money in a coffee can.

...
However, I did not go so far as to say that all those collected taxes should be simply handed out in the form of free assistance or welfare. It should only be as a subsistence to those who have jobs. .

Presently the largest sector of employement is government jobs, as I recall it is about 20% - 40% of the economy. You suggest subsidising jobs already paid for by taxes? The trouble with subsidizing pay is that private enterprise is then not going to pay as much anymore, leaving more income for the shareholders. It would actually benefit shareholders before labor.

Those with jobs typically do not need assistance. There absolutely does need to be assistance to help people during involuntary transitions.






While a sales tax would be slightly more detrimental to the poor than to the rich (who regardless of what some of you simpletons have said do spend much more than poor people),

An uninformed statement without a qualifying percentage it has no basis. Canada has 15% and it is not enough, so presume a 40% sales tax. It would absolutely wipe out the poor. Here is an example:

The typical monthly grocery bill of $500 would become $700. Fuel would go from $100 to $140. Clothing from $200 to $280.
Now a household with a $20,000 monthly inome that would result in 1.6% of their income going to taxes. For a household closer to the national average of $3000/month it would be 10.6% - about FIVE TIMES MORE! And that is just for living expenses.
It works out just as unfairly for cars. Even if the high income person pays twice as much for their car their tax rate (based on income) is less than half!
Even a 'simpleton' could figure out why that is not fair, why can't you?


.... like requiring profit sharing programs so that the people who are producing the wealth for these assholes are actually reaping some of the benefit. .

Gee, ever heard of a 401k? Last I checked Walmart offered their stock as part of your matching (free) contribution. I also believe they offer stock options, purchase plans and other incentives to employees. Under the tax code you will find 401k is in the section that defines profit sharing plans.

Not to mention where do you think your paycheck comes from, their losses?


You really oughta read up on some of these things before posting a knee-jerk reaction. An opinion not based on facts is nothing more than a statement of mental laziness. Even if the facts are later disprooved, at least you had SOMETHING for a justification other than ancedotal musings.

By the way, yes, the rich spend MORE on products than poor people, but a much larger portion of their incomes go to investments, which are non-taxable in a sales tax based society. So where the lower spends up to 100% of their income in the taxable area, the wealthiest are what, 40%, 50%, 80%. Any way you cut it, it is blatantly unfair. The richer you are, the more you benefit, and the poorer, the more you suffer.
But under this type of tax system (I haven't heard Hastert's plan, this is just something I developed myself) anything vital to life wouldn't be taxed- cutting the portion of taxable spending in poor people significant. Potatoes are tax-free, whereas alcohol is taxed like 25% (well maybe not that high, you'd have to look at stuff to see what levels different things should be taxed) The hard part I see is really in determining what should at shouldn't be taxed. I think, for example, that a $3 pack of basic white t-shirts should be tax free, while a $6,000 dollar fur coat should be taxed. The hard part is then determining where to draw the line.
However, it seems to me that if poor people aren't paying taxes for their basic survival, and aren't paying taxes on their income, they'll be paying significantly less than they are paying now. And if they buy lots of alcohol and cigarettes, then they should pay for it.
(I've probably mentioned this a million times on here, but once I was at wal-mart with my boyfriend, and we saw these folks buying about $20 worth of food and stuff with food stamps. They then proceeded to buy about $20 worth of booze with cash. If they'd used the money they were earning on their vital stuff instead of alcohol, then they wouldn't need to be supported by the government. Basically, they were buying tons of vodka with government money- because if they didn't have the food stamps, then they wouldn't have been buying the liquor)

edit: oh, and I didn't comment about your other argument because although it makes sense to me, I don't really know enough about economics to say anything worthwhile

Um, I'm not sure what 'liquid' income is, but if you mean liquid assets then I suppose you think the interest fairy just shows up at night and gives them money. Or is it on trees? In order for it to grow it must be invested - either in safe investments like a bank, or a risky investments like a business. Either way it goes towards creating jobs and economic growth. (bank=home loans, jobs made constructing homes plus many other types loans/investments)

So you argument falls flat on it's face. The only way the wealthy can NOT benefit everyone else would be to bury thier money in a coffee can.

Obviously, you understood little of what I said. By sitting on their money I did not imply that they put it in a little bag and go mother hen on it dumbass. That statement was intended to show that they don't distribute it to anyone other than themselves... wait, I said that. Not once did I argue against investment, but against the accumulation of liquid income. In other words, having equity totaling $10 million, but having $5.5 million of that sitting in a multi-story house with an indoor olympic sized pool. They can't settle for a modest home, a sensible car, and either increase investments or donate more to society (since you seem to be handicapped I'll clarify that by society I mean philanthropic endeavors). My argument falls flat on its face? There was no argument to begin with moron, only a statement that rich people are greedy, argue with that.

Presently the largest sector of employement is government jobs, as I recall it is about 20% - 40% of the economy. You suggest subsidising jobs already paid for by taxes? The trouble with subsidizing pay is that private enterprise is then not going to pay as much anymore, leaving more income for the shareholders. It would actually benefit shareholders before labor.

Those with jobs typically do not need assistance. There absolutely does need to be assistance to help people during involuntary transitions.

Well, let's think for a moment shall we? Come on, it won't hurt. People employed by the government don't need subsidy, so why would we subsidize their income? Therefore I obviously did not suggest subsidizing government employees. The simple solution to private enterprise trying to fattent their own wallets is to forbid lowering a subsidized person's wage through legislation. Complicated piece of legislation, but doable. Those with jobs don't need assistane? Hmmm... minimum wage puts a person's income at $10,920 per annum, that's over $1,000.00 below the declared "poverty line." Those people need assistance. Assistance for the unemployed due to involuntary conditions should absolutely be subsidized as well, but on a limited basis similar to that of current unemployment subsidies. As long as everyone knows their income will be maintained at a minimum standard due to the subsidy policy, they will be more apt to take a job that doesn't necessarily pay as much as their former employment. If they want to make more they should go back to school and learn a new trade.

An uninformed statement without a qualifying percentage it has no basis. Canada has 15% and it is not enough, so presume a 40% sales tax. It would absolutely wipe out the poor. Here is an example:

The typical monthly grocery bill of $500 would become $700. Fuel would go from $100 to $140. Clothing from $200 to $280.
Now a household with a $20,000 monthly inome that would result in 1.6% of their income going to taxes. For a household closer to the national average of $3000/month it would be 10.6% - about FIVE TIMES MORE! And that is just for living expenses.
It works out just as unfairly for cars. Even if the high income person pays twice as much for their car their tax rate (based on income) is less than half!
Even a 'simpleton' could figure out why that is not fair, why can't you?

Equally useless. Canada's 15% wasn't enough because it couldn't support their massive social welfare budget, which we don't have. Since 40% is pessimistically outrageous and just silly, I'll finish your calculation for you. A grocery bill increases 40%, clothing costs by 40%, etc. Now I believe I recall saying that the tax would be more burdensome to the poor, in fact, I did say that. What you failed to calculate was that even though the expense is greater, they still have more money in their pockets since they no longer pay out 30% of their income in income taxes. And maybe a simpleton could see that those taxes alone wouldn't be fair, but you obviously weren't simpleton enough to read the part where I said that such unfairness would be counterbalanced by continuing the income tax on those who are wealthy. Remember the little thing about double taxing the rich? Or did you just conveniently leave that out because it didn't help your case any?

Gee, ever heard of a 401k? Last I checked Walmart offered their stock as part of your matching (free) contribution. I also believe they offer stock options, purchase plans and other incentives to employees. Under the tax code you will find 401k is in the section that defines profit sharing plans.

Not to mention where do you think your paycheck comes from, their losses?


You really oughta read up on some of these things before posting a knee-jerk reaction. An opinion not based on facts is nothing more than a statement of mental laziness. Even if the facts are later disprooved, at least you had SOMETHING for a justification other than ancedotal musings.

Gee, ever been on the receiving end of Wal-Mart's "profit sharing plan?" Obviously not. The way it's calculated is .4% of the individuals stores' profit after all expenses is distributed to the employees of that store on a share basis. .4% man. Wal-Mart normally realizes a 27% profit margin on all sales. Couple that with over $300 billion in annual sales. Now is that .4% actually hurting the owners of Wal-Mart? Not according to Forbes, since he says that each of the four of them are worth 20.5 billion dollars, that's 82 billion total (didn't want us simpletons to not be able to figure that out). So I think that since you're a mental cripple, I should have been utterly specific and said that I hope they make fair and effective profit sharing plans. The meager Wal-Mart paycheck amounts to about 10% of their operating budget, the rest goes into advertising, inventory, and their massively top heavy overhead. The profit goes straight into the pockets of its 4 owners.
Don't you mean anecdotal musings idiot? Here's the difference between us, I was just musing, you actually had to try and argue with me, but you really only succeeded in generating a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric. Don't play on my level if you aren't ready.

Ok, before I retake economics, please retake high school English. that paragraph was incredibly difficult to read.

And as for you, if my syntax is too complex for you, maybe I'll dumb it down a little more in the future. Is a 6th grade reading level ok for you?

Your argument is still weak at best. You base the entire debate around a very flimsy presumption that people will treat cars and other large ticket durable goods like bread and milk before a hurricane. If I just bought a car 6 months ago, why would I go and buy a new one just because of an impending cost change. I wouldn't, since my car is fine and I already own it. The same goes for refrigerators and other things as well. At most, there would be a minor spike in sales since people would most likely trade those items in somewhat early, but only if the one they currently owned was nearing the end of its expected useable life. Most people would sit back and say, "man I'm glad my refrigerator is working great." Is any of this getting through to you at all? Is my diction simple enough this time?

By the way, yes, the rich spend MORE on products than poor people, but a much larger portion of their incomes go to investments, which are non-taxable in a sales tax based society. So where the lower spends up to 100% of their income in the taxable area, the wealthiest are what, 40%, 50%, 80%. Any way you cut it, it is blatantly unfair. The richer you are, the more you benefit, and the poorer, the more you suffer.

The only problem I have with this is that as a benefactor of capital gains myself, I know for a fact that most of my investment income is manipulated away from taxes anyway. If the rich actually paid taxes on their capital gains, then you might have a point. And like I pointed out to that jackass back up there, you offset the rich by continuing the income tax on them as well as the sales tax. They get double taxed. Listen this time for God's sake.

The only difference is we have universal health.


I don't want public healthcare. I've seen public housing.

Ok it is obivious to me that none of you are familar with the Fair Tax Act (HR25) www.fairtax.org

Let's start with the reality of taxes. Because businesses are taxed, the cost of creating/manufacturing a product will go up, especially if taxes go up. Truism: Bussiness DON'T pay taxes. They collect them ultimatly from the consumer or the employees and pass them on to the gov't in the form of higher prices or lower wages or benefits. ALL bussinesses do this, whether they realize it or not. The cumalitive(sp?) cost of the hidden taxes all up the line is on the order of 22%. This holds true for services as well, but products are more concrete to deal with.

Secondally, the Constitution states that the Federal Gov't is not allowed to collect an income tax. That was changed with the 19th Amendment. Originally this was to aid in the cost of WWI or II, I forget which, and was supposed to be temporary. It was later made permenant. Thus if the 19th Amendment is repealed then the IRS will become illegal. Sales tax was the economic stimulis for this country up until that point along with impact fees (i.e. those fees you pay to the govt such as when you get your drivers license)

Now while it is true that by itself a sales tax is regressive (i.e. the effect gets higher as the income gets lower) as opposed to progressaive (i.e the effect gets higher as the income gets higher) as the current Incometax system is, the Fair Tax Act takes this into account.

The proposed National Income Tax is to be 23%. I know that seems like a lot, but read on! Each and every household will recieve monthly a check from the gov't that will be equal to the amount of basic necessaties as based on the poverty level. This check is based on household size and not income, thus everyone gets a fair share. A family with 2 children (2 parents) that earn $10,000 will get the same amount as the $250,000 family with both parents and 2 children. No exceptions. Thus if you spend up to the poverty level, you will effectivly pay no taxes. BTW this is what most people on welfare and in the lower most income brackets are doing now. They may have money taken out of their paychecks, but they typically get it all back and then thanks to EIC, they get back more than they paid in.

On top of the monthly substenance rebate check, the sales tax will only be imposed at the retail level. Bussiness to bussiness transactions are not taxed, savings and investments are not taxed (as they are now. All the intrest on the money you save is taxed). But at the retail level there are no exceptions. Food, cars, cigs, gas, books, services, the whole nine yards. Since businesses no longer have to pay taxes, the cost of manufacturing their products drops dramatically. Thus the price at the retail level will drop. Now while a few business might try to maintain their current prices to realize the larger profit margin, the major corporations are going to know that if they don't lower their prices the compatition will and undercut them, so it is unlikely that anything will stay high for long.

Now remember, while you are paying a 23% national sales tax, you were cummativly paying a 22% hidden tax passed on to you by the businesses. Isn't this higher? well let's do some math. Say you pay $100 a week for groceries (Darn you eat a lot!). Remove the 22% embedded tax (note this number is not the percentage mark-up but the portion of the final price that is embedded tax) That is now $78 that the groceries cost. Then you pay your 23% national sales tax. That's $17.94 for a total of $95.94. Wow! Savings! But wait there's more!

Not only have you spent less on your products, BUT since there is no more income tax you actually get to keep ALL of your paycheck. If you earn $1000 in a week, your pay check will be $1000. For most people that would be a 10% to 15% increase to their paychecks. So now you have less going out and more comming in. BTW don't forget that part, if not all (dependant on what the poverty level is) of that tax on your groceries is paid for by the Gov't rebate check you got at the beginning of the month. So that is less tax that you are actually paying out of your pocket.

Oh BTW all those bussinesses that are "moving overseas"....a survey of major world corporations, both foreign and those who "went away", showed that if the business tax went away they would bulid their next maunfacturing plants in the US. Nice economic bonus.

My argument falls flat on its face? There was no argument to begin with moron, only a statement that rich people are greedy, argue with that.

Ok I will. Your statement that rich people are greedy is a blanket statement. It's like saying black people are poor or that Germans are Nazis, or to be more with the topic that welfare recepiants don't work and have more babies to get more money. None of these statements are true. Yes there are greedy rich people. But there is also a lot of "rich" people who don't live extravagant lives, and who give away lots of money.


Well, let's think for a moment shall we? Come on, it won't hurt. People employed by the government don't need subsidy, so why would we subsidize their income? Therefore I obviously did not suggest subsidizing government employees.

Again with the blanket statement. As a member in the military at paygrade E-3 and E-4 I was earning below the poverty level. My fiancee works for the state as a clerk. She earns less than I do working as a local delivery truck driver. I'm not supporting subsidies, merly pointing out that working for the gov't or not is not a good factor to determine whether or not they are needed.

Now remember, while you are paying a 23% national sales tax, you were cummativly paying a 22% hidden tax passed on to you by the businesses. Isn't this higher? well let's do some math. Say you pay $100 a week for groceries (Darn you eat a lot!). Remove the 22% embedded tax (note this number is not the percentage mark-up but the portion of the final price that is embedded tax) That is now $78 that the groceries cost. Then you pay your 23% national sales tax. That's $17.94 for a total of $95.94. Wow! Savings! But wait there's more!
maybe I don't know what you mean by "embedded tax"
but...if the groceries cost $78, and you pay 22% on them, that gives you a total of $95.16, not $100

Meaning the markup they could not sustain if they weren't taxed 14% for their first million, 34% for the next nine or fraction, and 35% beyond that.

Twenty-two percent of that $100 is going to taxes. Think pie chart.

Rather than it being

|---------------100%|$78--------------------------------|-22%|$17.16-|

it's
|-------------------------------------------78%|$78----------------|-22%|$22-|

for the reason that I find this thread interesting, bump.

maybe I don't know what you mean by "embedded tax"
but...if the groceries cost $78, and you pay 22% on them, that gives you a total of $95.16, not $100

You went the wrong way. 22% OF the cost is from the embedded tax. That is the cummulation of all the taxes along the way from the start of it being made to getting to the store....

Basically, if it cost $78 to make the embedded taxes add up to $22 bringing the grand total to $100

Is that a little more clearer?

Embedded taxes are taxes you never see which are taken by the government at some transaction from raw materials to final retail sale. A classic example is the US Federal alcohol tax which is leived on brewers and distillers when they manufacture alcoholic beverages and passed on down through the distribution chain, so most people don't even know they paid a federal alcohol tax on that beer they bought at happy hour.

Oh BTW all those bussinesses that are "moving overseas"....a survey of major world corporations, both foreign and those who "went away", showed that if the business tax went away they would bulid their next maunfacturing plants in the US. Nice economic bonus.

Wow. Thats great.

So do those foreign and domestic corporations that took place in this "survey" that you dreamed up also figure that along with the tax scheme you dreamed up that the new tax law would also eliminate the minimum wage, outlaw unions, cut back on workplace regulations, eliminate enviromental regulations, and somehow get American workers to accept far less... and when I say less I mean none... frindge benifits?

You know... all the REAL reasons that many companies are shifting jobs offshore.

Cause I doubt that changing the business tax laws here would attract as many employers back to our shores as much as turning the American work enviroment into more of a third world sweatshop.

Wow. Thats great.

So do those foreign and domestic corporations that took place in this "survey" that you dreamed up also figure that along with the tax scheme you dreamed up that the new tax law would also eliminate the minimum wage, outlaw unions, cut back on workplace regulations, eliminate enviromental regulations, and somehow get American workers to accept far less... and when I say less I mean none... frindge benifits?

Where did that come from? I didn't dream up this survey. Go to www.fairtax.org and fnd the info yourself. It's all there. And it's big news right now. Look up HR 25 on your favorite search engine.

The Fair Tax Act was started by a Representive from GA and has been steadily gaining support from a lot of COngressmen. Last I head, it had NO detractors. There were those who didn't believe it would get off the ground, but no one is actively opposing it.

And nowhere in HR25 will you find anything that eliminates the minimum wage, outlaws union, or any of that other stuff. Where did you get that idea?

You know... all the REAL reasons that many companies are shifting jobs offshore.

Cause I doubt that changing the business tax laws here would attract as many employers back to our shores as much as turning the American work enviroment into more of a third world sweatshop.

Your remarks seems to be taking note of two seperte issues here. One is businesses moving overseas or at least out of the US. Most of them are only moving their CORPORATE OFFICES overseas. They leave all their businesses here and then they are only taxed on business in the US. If they are incorporated in the US then they pay taxes on all business even if it is NOT in the US. They save money by moving to pay less tax, becasue then they can keep both costs and prices low.

The other issue seems to be outsourcing to other countires. This hapens because people want to pay the lowest price. Example: I make computer mice(mouses?). I manufacture the pieces here in the US. I ship them overseas to be assembled and then ship the back here to be sold. If I were to keep them in the US to be assembled, I'd have to not only pay employees at least minimum wage but I would also have to pay benifits, not to mention the cost of maintaining the assembly plant. To cover all that extra cost I'd have to raise the price of the mice or go bankrupt. Before I could sell the mouse for $2, now with assembly in the US as opposed to overseas they will cost $5 or more. While it is noble to say that you would buy the $5 mouse to keep jobs here in the US, the simple fact is that the vast majority of Americans will buy the cheaper $2 mouse instead. And if I went bankrupt then not only would the people who assemble the product be out of a job, but so would the people who manufacture the parts and the people who distribute and sell them to the stores. By outsourceing I can keep costs down so people will buy my product and thus I can at least keeps some jobs in in the US

What do you all think about getting rid of the IRS and useing sales taxes.

IRS has got to go, income tax has got to go, the Federal Reserve has got to go, and all draconian business regulations have got to go. Moreover, we should return to gold and silver backed currency, pull out of NAFTA and the WTO, abolish minimum wage laws, and leave the economy completely to the private sector. The only involvement the government should have- if any- is breaking up monopolies.