How would you feel if they simply implemented a flat national sales tax to replace income taxes. I believe Steve Forbes ran on this issue some years back. I am not an economist, but I'm guessing the revenue would have to some way equal taxes already brought in from income taxes to support current military, homeland expenditures, etc.
Flat National Sales Tax
- Thread starter Freetacos
- Start date
Camp David
New member
Freetacos said:
I would heartily support such a flat tax but many would not... the idea of everyone paying the same tax is such an irritant to the liberal left; they being big supporters of unequal taxation for all!
SixForSure
New member
The problem with sales tax instead of income tax is that it is regressive. i.e. the less money you earn the greater percentage of your income you pay in taxes.
Lets say:
You earn $30,000 per year and I earn $60,000.
We both buy a wide screen plasma TV and all the goodies for $5,000 and pay 10% tax.
You paid 1.66 percent of your income in tax on that item.
I only paid .833 percent of my income.
Theoretically a person who earns more than another will spend more, but they will also save more. When the dust settles, the difference in earnings will be greater than the difference in spending and the person who earned more money will have paid a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than the person who earned less.
Edit 10/24 10:25 for clarification: The Dems would scream "TAX CUT FOR THE RICH, TAX CUT FOR THE RICH."
Lets say:
You earn $30,000 per year and I earn $60,000.
We both buy a wide screen plasma TV and all the goodies for $5,000 and pay 10% tax.
You paid 1.66 percent of your income in tax on that item.
I only paid .833 percent of my income.
Theoretically a person who earns more than another will spend more, but they will also save more. When the dust settles, the difference in earnings will be greater than the difference in spending and the person who earned more money will have paid a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than the person who earned less.
Edit 10/24 10:25 for clarification: The Dems would scream "TAX CUT FOR THE RICH, TAX CUT FOR THE RICH."
Last edited:
SixForSure
New member
I was answering the OP's question ("what do you think..........") with an opinion and my rationale for that opinion. The fact that you, as a member of the staff is asking "so what" suggests to me that I may have commited some sort of faux pas by doing so. If this is the case I sincerely appologize.
www.fairtax.org
Seems like a good idea to me, though I imagine it would have to be implemented over a long period of time to avoid a shock to the market due to the effect it would have on consumer confidence. Barring the excise tax I'd be all for a flat tax. The only thing I worry about is the numerous loopholes that the rich can use to skirt the system though hopefully a flat tax would rid us of the ridiculous tax code we currently have.
But I'd be all for an excise tax. The federal government would have to be significantly trimmed, however, including not spending half a ****ing trillion dollars on the military.
Seems like a good idea to me, though I imagine it would have to be implemented over a long period of time to avoid a shock to the market due to the effect it would have on consumer confidence. Barring the excise tax I'd be all for a flat tax. The only thing I worry about is the numerous loopholes that the rich can use to skirt the system though hopefully a flat tax would rid us of the ridiculous tax code we currently have.
But I'd be all for an excise tax. The federal government would have to be significantly trimmed, however, including not spending half a ****ing trillion dollars on the military.
Taxes and fractional banking reserve are different wings on the same airplane. You have to deal with both or neither. As much as I like the Fair Tax in concept, reality is nuthin' will happen because far too much is at stake in taking the banking franchise from the current private company.
SixForSure said:
With over 150 posts, I think you would have noticed by now that mods join in on discussion all the time that has nothing to do with their mod status so you shouldn't be put out by the mod's comment.
I have no intention of explaining someone elses's post, but I will jump in here with what I think to be a similar viewpoint that also begs a "so what?".
Your concern about percentages has nothing to do with real numbers, but only comes into play if you think that there is some kind of "fairness" that MUST be applied to taxation.
If so, then I'd like you to explain to me what's fair about:
1. The top 50% of Americans pay 96.54% of ALL income taxes.
2. The top 1% of Americans pay 34.27% of ALL income taxes.
3. The top 25% of Americans pay 83.88% of ALL income taxes.
Is that not lopsided enough? If not, what more do you want? Do you want the top 1% of Americans to pay ALL income taxes? Would that be good enough for you? Would you feel better if ALL incentive to create and succeed were taken away from most Americans to the point where they make less when moving to a higher tax bracket and therefore have NO incentive to do so?
Here's a thought: Poor people don't write payroll checks. Think about it.
Carter
With over 150 posts, I think you would have noticed by now that mods join in on discussion all the time that has nothing to do with their mod status so you shouldn't be put out by the mod's comment.
I have no intention of explaining someone elses's post, but I will jump in here with what I think to be a similar viewpoint that also begs a "so what?".
Your concern about percentages has nothing to do with real numbers, but only comes into play if you think that there is some kind of "fairness" that MUST be applied to taxation.
If so, then I'd like you to explain to me what's fair about:
1. The top 50% of Americans pay 96.54% of ALL income taxes.
2. The top 1% of Americans pay 34.27% of ALL income taxes.
3. The top 25% of Americans pay 83.88% of ALL income taxes.
Is that not lopsided enough? If not, what more do you want? Do you want the top 1% of Americans to pay ALL income taxes? Would that be good enough for you? Would you feel better if ALL incentive to create and succeed were taken away from most Americans to the point where they make less when moving to a higher tax bracket and therefore have NO incentive to do so?
Here's a thought: Poor people don't write payroll checks. Think about it.
Carter
SixForSure
New member
The system as it stands is absolutely unfair and lopsided. Yes, call me crazy, but I think there should be some kind of fairness applied to taxes. The current system doesn't qualify, but neither does the sales tax concept. I think the fair way to deal with taxes is for a flat rate, no exemption, no deduction tax. I am sorry for the misunderstanding with Mr. Helms. I realize the mods join in, as they should, but perhaps a reply more substantive than "so what" would have clarified things a bit.
orionengnr
New member
What, and put
(insert number here) however many IRS workers out of a job?
I'm all in favor of the idea. A side benefit would be that those "undocumented workers" would at least pay taxes on a portion of their earnings (whatever portion is not transmitted via Southern...oops, I meant Western Union).
Hmmmm...maybe a 17% tax on all Western Union transfers out of country?
I won't hold my breath on any of the above
(insert number here) however many IRS workers out of a job?
I'm all in favor of the idea. A side benefit would be that those "undocumented workers" would at least pay taxes on a portion of their earnings (whatever portion is not transmitted via Southern...oops, I meant Western Union).
Hmmmm...maybe a 17% tax on all Western Union transfers out of country?
I won't hold my breath on any of the above
orionengnr
New member
Estimates that I have read come in around 17%, give or take.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds good to me.
You guys need to read the book, I guess. I cheated and borrowed a copy. I am enthused about it, but not hopeful. Some of the posts here are examples why I am not hopeful.
SixForSure, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. The question. "Huh?" was meant to express a lack of understanding of the text quoted immediately prior to the "Huh?" I still don't get the meaning of it. Waitaminit ... He has more, ergo he can spend more and save more. I get it. And we can't have that can we? No, sir.
The "so what?" is another way of saying, "What's difference would it make?". Your statement, "... the difference in earnings will be greater than the difference in spending ..." may or not be true in today's system or with nat'l sales tax. That relationship is not fixed. We make choices at the point of retail purchase. The Fair Tax proposed (I think it's HR 25 ... ?) takes sales tax on "essentials" off the table. They are not taxed. Find a copy of the book. It's a short read.
Then, "... I think there should be some kind of fairness applied to taxes. The current system doesn't qualify, but neither does the sales tax concept. I think the fair way to deal with taxes is for a flat rate, no exemption, no deduction tax." Well, I certainly agree with the need for fairness, but it's difficult to break that income tax habit isn't it? A flat rate income tax is still an income tax and that means an IRS.
I discern a bit of "let's soak the rich" approach here: "... the less money you earn the greater percentage of your income you pay in taxes." I say that because your example that follows is an identical purchase with an identical sales tax. But that's not good enough apparently, because they are paying the same tax. Why is that unfair? They are buying the exact same item at retail. Built in to your example is the assumption that the lower income has the right to buy and own "things" that a higher income buys and owns (so far so good), but shouldn't pay the same sales tax because his/her income is less. What's that got to do with it? You only pay a greater percentage of your income in taxes under the national sales tax idea if you try to keep up with the Joneses that have a higher income than you. I suppose you could stop spending at some percentage of your income. It's called choice.
But wait! Here's an idea ... we could give the lower income purchaser a discount on the price of the retail item! I'm not sure how that would work, but it sure would be more fair. I'm sure.
I think that neither you nor I have any particular right to have balance in our personal budget, in spite of how we spend. And the concept of a higher income paying a higher tax rate is exactly that. The ultimate goal (and therefore the intent) is to allow everyone to own the same material possesions while having vastly different incomes. We have choices to make and we don't need the government helping us out. 'Just an opinion, mind you. Why don't we just dispense with the charade and have a national income scale and abolish personal profit. That would solve your problem, you know. Nothing would be more fair than that. 'Problem is, it's been tried. Just not here yet.
See here, if you earn $1M this year and buy a $100K auto, do I have the right to scrape up the dough and mortage the house and buy the same auto, but pay less tax on it because I'm a fool for doing it or is it just because I deserve a break because I earn less. I'll never understand that. What is the rationale for it? So we can all be more equal?
One of the advantages of the Fair Tax would be the abolition of the IRS. There was a time when I would have supported a flat rate tax, but no more. We drive on the same roads. We have the same Senators and Representatives. Your dollar is worth the same as my dollar, you simply may have more of them. The IRS has to go ... but I don't expect it to happen. Too many fearmongers and too much fear of change.
SixForSure, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. The question. "Huh?" was meant to express a lack of understanding of the text quoted immediately prior to the "Huh?" I still don't get the meaning of it. Waitaminit ... He has more, ergo he can spend more and save more. I get it. And we can't have that can we? No, sir.
The "so what?" is another way of saying, "What's difference would it make?". Your statement, "... the difference in earnings will be greater than the difference in spending ..." may or not be true in today's system or with nat'l sales tax. That relationship is not fixed. We make choices at the point of retail purchase. The Fair Tax proposed (I think it's HR 25 ... ?) takes sales tax on "essentials" off the table. They are not taxed. Find a copy of the book. It's a short read.
Then, "... I think there should be some kind of fairness applied to taxes. The current system doesn't qualify, but neither does the sales tax concept. I think the fair way to deal with taxes is for a flat rate, no exemption, no deduction tax." Well, I certainly agree with the need for fairness, but it's difficult to break that income tax habit isn't it? A flat rate income tax is still an income tax and that means an IRS.
I discern a bit of "let's soak the rich" approach here: "... the less money you earn the greater percentage of your income you pay in taxes." I say that because your example that follows is an identical purchase with an identical sales tax. But that's not good enough apparently, because they are paying the same tax. Why is that unfair? They are buying the exact same item at retail. Built in to your example is the assumption that the lower income has the right to buy and own "things" that a higher income buys and owns (so far so good), but shouldn't pay the same sales tax because his/her income is less. What's that got to do with it? You only pay a greater percentage of your income in taxes under the national sales tax idea if you try to keep up with the Joneses that have a higher income than you. I suppose you could stop spending at some percentage of your income. It's called choice.
But wait! Here's an idea ... we could give the lower income purchaser a discount on the price of the retail item! I'm not sure how that would work, but it sure would be more fair. I'm sure.
I think that neither you nor I have any particular right to have balance in our personal budget, in spite of how we spend. And the concept of a higher income paying a higher tax rate is exactly that. The ultimate goal (and therefore the intent) is to allow everyone to own the same material possesions while having vastly different incomes. We have choices to make and we don't need the government helping us out. 'Just an opinion, mind you. Why don't we just dispense with the charade and have a national income scale and abolish personal profit. That would solve your problem, you know. Nothing would be more fair than that. 'Problem is, it's been tried. Just not here yet.
See here, if you earn $1M this year and buy a $100K auto, do I have the right to scrape up the dough and mortage the house and buy the same auto, but pay less tax on it because I'm a fool for doing it or is it just because I deserve a break because I earn less. I'll never understand that. What is the rationale for it? So we can all be more equal?
One of the advantages of the Fair Tax would be the abolition of the IRS. There was a time when I would have supported a flat rate tax, but no more. We drive on the same roads. We have the same Senators and Representatives. Your dollar is worth the same as my dollar, you simply may have more of them. The IRS has to go ... but I don't expect it to happen. Too many fearmongers and too much fear of change.
Slugthrower
New member
The flat tax is not a good idea. The Fair Tax is a pretty good idea. A Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz and Congressman Lender have written a book on this, the Republicans have looked at it and the Dems well they don't like it. The tax is a inclusive tax not an exclusive one. The tax takes a lot of power from the politicians, so it may not see the light of day. If you really want to know what the tax is about, read the Fair Tax book. Go to Boortz.com (no www in front) some info and interesting things are on this sight.
The rate of this tax is about 23% , the needs of every man are offset by gov't compensation for the necessities. Food , fuel , ect. Basically the rich pay more as they spend more and the poor less as they have less disposable income.
Hope this gives you some help in knowing what the Fair Tax is.
The rate of this tax is about 23% , the needs of every man are offset by gov't compensation for the necessities. Food , fuel , ect. Basically the rich pay more as they spend more and the poor less as they have less disposable income.
Hope this gives you some help in knowing what the Fair Tax is.
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
I'm pretty sure that some versions of the proposals for a national sales tax include credits for lower-income individuals. A flat or "fair" tax will never appeal to America's underbelly...the DemocRAT voter base. It'd be extremely difficult to find enough politicians with the cahonies to tax Americans fairly.
The estate tax is far more regressive and repressive than is sales tax. Estate taxation is simply socialistic distribution of wealth, pure and simple.
The estate tax is far more regressive and repressive than is sales tax. Estate taxation is simply socialistic distribution of wealth, pure and simple.
