Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 

My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?

The problem with a sales tax is that it doesn't raise enough income at a reasonable tax percentage. And, by raising the sales tax percentage, it ends up being a regressive tax.

You shift the tax burden from the upper class to the lower and middle.

That's the opposite of what should be done.

Curious what you mean...but my instinct is that the guy who makes $40K a year is more likely to spend a higher percentage of his salary a year just to get by, and the guy making $400k a year is more likely to save a larger percentage of his income.  Which means that the guy making $40k a year is getting a higher "tax rate" as a higher percentage of his salary is taxed?  Is that what you mean?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 

My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?

The problem with a sales tax is that it doesn't raise enough income at a reasonable tax percentage. And, by raising the sales tax percentage, it ends up being a regressive tax.

You shift the tax burden from the upper class to the lower and middle.

That's the opposite of what should be done.

Curious what you mean...but my instinct is that the guy who makes $40K a year is more likely to spend a higher percentage of his salary a year just to get by, and the guy making $400k a year is more likely to save a larger percentage of his income.  Which means that the guy making $40k a year is getting a higher "tax rate" as a higher percentage of his salary is taxed?  Is that what you mean?

Essentially, yes.

Also, if the tax burden isn't being shifted, why make such a huge and drastic change? What are we trying to accomplish?

The rate can be set to ensure that the govt gets enough. 

Posted by greeny9 on 6/9/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

Really? Well then I'd argue that you have not thought about the consequences. If everybody where taxed equally the bottom 50% would be taxed more leaving them with even less money to spend then they do right now, so less money being spent at mcdonalds and Walmart. What exactly does that do to the economy? Now if the top say 5% were to pay this equal tax then obviously they total tax they pay would be less. Does that mean they are going to spend more? Don't think so, because the difference to them is negligible like I said what's the difference if your annual salary is 8.5 million or 9.25 million? It won't make a lick of difference to the amount of money you spend. So doing this the economy would suffer hard core. Now let's flip it, a more progressive tax would give more money to the bottom 50, and most if not all that money will be spent at McDonald's and Walmart, which means the economy strengthens. Meaning more money for everybody, which means for the top 5% whom own all these companies anyways. So in the end they will make up the small shortfall in taxes that they paid. And in the end most of that money is going off shore anyways so that they pay less taxes anyways, because that is what the super rich do. How does that sound to u tec?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 6/9/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

Really? Well then I'd argue that you have not thought about the consequences. If everybody where taxed equally the bottom 50% would be taxed more leaving them with even less money to spend then they do right now, so less money being spent at mcdonalds and Walmart. What exactly does that do to the economy? Now if the top say 5% were to pay this equal tax then obviously they total tax they pay would be less. Does that mean they are going to spend more? Don't think so, because the difference to them is negligible like I said what's the difference if your annual salary is 8.5 million or 9.25 million? It won't make a lick of difference to the amount of money you spend. So doing this the economy would suffer hard core. Now let's flip it, a more progressive tax would give more money to the bottom 50, and most if not all that money will be spent at McDonald's and Walmart, which means the economy strengthens. Meaning more money for everybody, which means for the top 5% whom own all these companies anyways. So in the end they will make up the small shortfall in taxes that they paid. And in the end most of that money is going off shore anyways so that they pay less taxes anyways, because that is what the super rich do. How does that sound to u tec?

Sounds like you're trying to funnel money to super-corporations McDonalds and Walmart.

But seriously . . . .

You start with a standard exemption for everybody, rich or poor.  The first $x of your income are not taxed.  Flat income tax rate above that.  For everybody, rich or poor.

The less money you make, the larger percentage of your income is exempt.  That's simple math.  From an overall "what percentage of my income am I paying in taxes?", the poor are paying a smaller percentage and the rich are paying a larger percentage (which converges to whatever the flat rate is for the super rich).

It's fair, it's one set of rules that's applied to equally to everybody (rich or poor), and it inherently provides some sort of "protection" for those at the lower end of the financial scale.

How does that sound 2 u, greeny?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice.

Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 6/9/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

Really? Well then I'd argue that you have not thought about the consequences. If everybody where taxed equally the bottom 50% would be taxed more leaving them with even less money to spend then they do right now, so less money being spent at mcdonalds and Walmart. What exactly does that do to the economy? Now if the top say 5% were to pay this equal tax then obviously they total tax they pay would be less. Does that mean they are going to spend more? Don't think so, because the difference to them is negligible like I said what's the difference if your annual salary is 8.5 million or 9.25 million? It won't make a lick of difference to the amount of money you spend. So doing this the economy would suffer hard core. Now let's flip it, a more progressive tax would give more money to the bottom 50, and most if not all that money will be spent at McDonald's and Walmart, which means the economy strengthens. Meaning more money for everybody, which means for the top 5% whom own all these companies anyways. So in the end they will make up the small shortfall in taxes that they paid. And in the end most of that money is going off shore anyways so that they pay less taxes anyways, because that is what the super rich do. How does that sound to u tec?

Sounds like you're trying to funnel money to super-corporations McDonalds and Walmart.

But seriously . . . .

You start with a standard exemption for everybody, rich or poor.  The first $x of your income are not taxed.  Flat income tax rate above that.  For everybody, rich or poor.

The less money you make, the larger percentage of your income is exempt.  That's simple math.  From an overall "what percentage of my income am I paying in taxes?", the poor are paying a smaller percentage and the rich are paying a larger percentage (which converges to whatever the flat rate is for the super rich).

It's fair, it's one set of rules that's applied to equally to everybody (rich or poor), and it inherently provides some sort of "protection" for those at the lower end of the financial scale.

How does that sound 2 u, greeny?

The flat tax won't work. Either the percentage is too low to generate enough revenue or too high for the poor and middle class to afford it.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice.

Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?

"And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice."

There is no income tax in this scenario.

"Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?"

The lower and middle class are not buying high-priced luxury items.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice.

Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?

"And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice."

There is no income tax in this scenario.

"Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?"

The lower and middle class are not buying high-priced luxury items.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
And I'll reiterate that people who make a living illegally will be putting money into the tax system with a federal sales tax.

And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice.

Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?

"And the people that already paid taxes on their income but no longer have income will be taxed twice."

There is no income tax in this scenario.

"Again, the upside to this change is status quo. No increase in government revenue. No reduction in taxes to the lower and middle class. What's the point?"

The lower and middle class are not buying high-priced luxury items.

There was an income tax in 2013 correct? And 2014? So if I saved a bunch of money for a new car, money I already paid income taxes on, and we changed the system to a national sales tax next year, I'd be double taxed on the money used to buy the car.

Re: line 2, you didn't answer the question. If the upside is status quo, what's the point in making the change? What are we trying to accomplish?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 6/9/2014 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

Really? Well then I'd argue that you have not thought about the consequences. If everybody where taxed equally the bottom 50% would be taxed more leaving them with even less money to spend then they do right now, so less money being spent at mcdonalds and Walmart. What exactly does that do to the economy? Now if the top say 5% were to pay this equal tax then obviously they total tax they pay would be less. Does that mean they are going to spend more? Don't think so, because the difference to them is negligible like I said what's the difference if your annual salary is 8.5 million or 9.25 million? It won't make a lick of difference to the amount of money you spend. So doing this the economy would suffer hard core. Now let's flip it, a more progressive tax would give more money to the bottom 50, and most if not all that money will be spent at McDonald's and Walmart, which means the economy strengthens. Meaning more money for everybody, which means for the top 5% whom own all these companies anyways. So in the end they will make up the small shortfall in taxes that they paid. And in the end most of that money is going off shore anyways so that they pay less taxes anyways, because that is what the super rich do. How does that sound to u tec?

Sounds like you're trying to funnel money to super-corporations McDonalds and Walmart.

But seriously . . . .

You start with a standard exemption for everybody, rich or poor.  The first $x of your income are not taxed.  Flat income tax rate above that.  For everybody, rich or poor.

The less money you make, the larger percentage of your income is exempt.  That's simple math.  From an overall "what percentage of my income am I paying in taxes?", the poor are paying a smaller percentage and the rich are paying a larger percentage (which converges to whatever the flat rate is for the super rich).

It's fair, it's one set of rules that's applied to equally to everybody (rich or poor), and it inherently provides some sort of "protection" for those at the lower end of the financial scale.

How does that sound 2 u, greeny?

The flat tax won't work. Either the percentage is too low to generate enough revenue or too high for the poor and middle class to afford it.

Did you read what I posted?  Or did you not understand what I posted?