User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 9:58:46 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. The rich would pay more, the poor would pay less. Undocumented workers would pay taxes. Tourists would pay taxes. Drug dealers would pay taxes. Meanwhile, the IRS, which costs how many billions to keep running, would no longer be needed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: National sales tax. Stop taxing productivity. This. The rich would pay more, the poor would pay less. Undocumented workers would pay taxes. Tourists would pay taxes. Drug dealers would pay taxes. Meanwhile, the IRS, which costs how many billions to keep running, would no longer be needed. Except that more folks would barter to avoid taxes. The government would step in and try to regulate, and GD would have something else to bitch about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:06:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it’s current rate? When was the last time federal spending was under tax revenues? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:14:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You may be missing the point of the IRS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:14:23 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it’s current rate? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: National sales tax locked in forever at 8%. Nothing else, ever. How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it’s current rate? People don't work for free. That's how. Non-critical jobs no longer being funded means those jobs go away and no longer burden the taxpayer. It's a self-correcting cycle. I for one am sick of financing the agencies that deliberately try to oppress us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:25:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When was the last time federal spending was under tax revenues? @Hamiltbl2 I know this is probably a trick question, and I could google the answer, but it actually is an interesting thought exercise to see if there ever was a time... Perhaps early after the Revolutionary War? But then we probably had issued war bonds to France, or other allies perhaps. Prior to income tax, all revenue was from duties, so perhaps in the early 1800s? I dunno man, good question. Now off to google to basically be told never (I'm guessing).  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:28:29 AM EDT
[#6]
FPNI
Every line of the tax code was bought and paid for. And the middle class wasn't the group doing the buying. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:28:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This program would increase wealth disparities. Look at what states that have sales taxes instead of income taxes report. Poor people paying to the state 5x what wealthy people pay. Do you think it’s simply and oddity that Washington state is home to so many billionaires? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The problem is that's precisely what we have now. We have tax shelters and favorable tax treatments for things only the wealthy can take advantage of. That's what a flat sales tax would eliminate. Further, we have a Feral Reserve that rewards bad behavior and prints our money into oblivion. They privatize the profits and socialize the losses. That, too, needs to stop. This program would increase wealth disparities. Look at what states that have sales taxes instead of income taxes report. Poor people paying to the state 5x what wealthy people pay. Do you think it’s simply and oddity that Washington state is home to so many billionaires? Can you walk me through that? In the country of Scottistan in the state of planemaker there is a 5% federal sales tax and a 5% state sales tax. It has some progressive features built in. There is zero tax on groceries, electric bill, housing, children’s sized clothing. Let’s say we have a guy busting ass 40 hours a week for his wife and four kids making 50K a year. Another guy is working 80 hours a week and making 500K a year. After rent, utilities, clothes, and groceries, the first guy has 10K leftover. If he spends every penny on taxable items, that’s 1K. Hell, if every dime he made was spent on taxable stuff that is 5K. The second guy spent 50K on a Wrangler for his oldest daughter. That’s 5K right there. Let alone the 100K he spent on an SRT 392 Wrangler, winch, etc. for himself. There is another 10K. I don’t see by what possible mechanism a 10% sales tax results in the poors paying 5x as much to the state as the affluent. For the social, political, and financial 0.1% and up types, sure, maybe those Jeeps actually belong to a business, foundation, non profit, etc. And we’re exempt from sales tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:28:55 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it’s current rate? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: National sales tax locked in forever at 8%. Nothing else, ever. How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it’s current rate? Please put me in charge of this |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:32:40 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A sales tax would dramatically increase wealth disparities. Like I said, people like most arfcommers will be paying 23% or more in sales tax on nearly all of their spending but my pops will pay it in his 2-300k that he spends annually and invest the rest of his income where the taxes can’t reach it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not at all. Wealth disparities in the US are caused by piss poor government policy. Eliminate that and wealth disparities will wash out on their own. A sales tax would dramatically increase wealth disparities. Like I said, people like most arfcommers will be paying 23% or more in sales tax on nearly all of their spending but my pops will pay it in his 2-300k that he spends annually and invest the rest of his income where the taxes can’t reach it. Wealth disparity in the Us is exacerbated by piss poor government policy and some other shady stuff. Eliminating that will NOT wash our wealth disparity. Quality density info involving cognitive ability, will, desire, effort, resilience, work ethics, shitty lifestyle choices, and poor decision making skills will ensure further wealth disparity ensues unchecked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:32:42 AM EDT
[#10]
Found a cool website, lots of nerdy graphs.
And perhaps the only time the gov spent less than they took in from taxes was maybe ~1810-1820? Nerdy history of US tax and revenue tax website |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:32:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perhaps. But that doesn’t answer the question. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok, honest question. Say some wealthy people made their money unfairly. Many didn’t. Many did it through good old fashioned hard work and risk taking. Are the self made just collateral damage? Because the same proposed system punishes both. A sales tax makes upward mobility much more difficult than an income tax. Perhaps. But that doesn’t answer the question. Exactly the opposite. A sales tax removes the impediment to upward mobility. Right now, the middle class is the stuckee on the bulk of the taxes. The poor pay nothing (or very little), and the very wealthy have tax carve-outs for things no one else can take advantage of. If you are in the middle class, the more successful you become, the more you are penalized for that success. In short, the current tax code disadvantages upward mobility, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:34:40 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The spending of federal and state governments per citizen is about 30K. Many citizens are past their income tax paying years. Many citizens have not reached the age of full time employment and paying income tax yet. Per typical working age citizen, we need 40K in income tax. A working age citizen paying 4K in income tax is a net loss. They are a liability not paying their share of the costs. The guy paying 40K is. Some guy paying 120k in income taxes in throwing down three times their share. Regardless of what someone makes, 120K in income tax is three times their share of the bill. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A flat sales tax would not disproportionately fall on anyone. That's the whole point. Every citizen of the republic should share the cost equally. If one person pays $4,000 of their $20,000 and another pays $40,000 of his $6,000,000 who has paid more? They both paid 20% of what they spent on consumer goods… More in what context? A higher percentage of what they spend? No, they both pay the same percentage of what they spend. That is what makes it equitable in the first place. The spending of federal and state governments per citizen is about 30K. Many citizens are past their income tax paying years. Many citizens have not reached the age of full time employment and paying income tax yet. Per typical working age citizen, we need 40K in income tax. A working age citizen paying 4K in income tax is a net loss. They are a liability not paying their share of the costs. The guy paying 40K is. Some guy paying 120k in income taxes in throwing down three times their share. Regardless of what someone makes, 120K in income tax is three times their share of the bill. If someone spends a million or two on a boat, they'll pay a lot more than somebody buying a jet ski yet both would be paying the same percentage of their expenditures in taxes. That's what makes it equitable in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:35:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Hamiltbl2 I know this is probably a trick question, and I could google the answer, but it actually is an interesting thought exercise to see if there ever was a time... Perhaps early after the Revolutionary War? But then we probably had issued war bonds to France, or other allies perhaps. Prior to income tax, all revenue was from duties, so perhaps in the early 1800s? I dunno man, good question. Now off to google to basically be told never (I'm guessing). @mnew007 On January 8, 1835, president Andrew Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. The last federal budget surplus was in 2001. Anytime someone wants to argue tax revenues in relation to federal spending I want to kick puppies. It's been almost 200 years since the country was debt free and over two decades since spending was under revenue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:36:27 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But they are not. A guy that makes a million and ends up paying 100K A guy that makes 400K ends up paying 40K A guy that makes 100K and ends up paying 10K And a guy that makes 10K and ends up paying 1K- Are not paying equally to support society. They are paying an equal percent of what they earn. Society needs 40K from each of them to fund things. The equal share is 40K per guy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what you mean there but if everyone is paying the same percentage tax on everything they buy, then everyone is contributing equally to the cost of government. A head tax is a fixed price per person. You didn’t address my question. Is it equal if one person pays $4,000 of their $20,000 and someone else pays $40,000 of their $6,000,000? If both pay 20% of a defined category of goods? I did address your question. If both are paying an equal percentage of the price they paid for whatever it is they are buying, then they are both paying equally to support the burden of the .gov. But they are not. A guy that makes a million and ends up paying 100K A guy that makes 400K ends up paying 40K A guy that makes 100K and ends up paying 10K And a guy that makes 10K and ends up paying 1K- Are not paying equally to support society. They are paying an equal percent of what they earn. Society needs 40K from each of them to fund things. The equal share is 40K per guy. No, this is wrong. Each is paying the exact same percentage of their spending. 17% of whatever you spend is 17% of whatever you spend. Each is paying equitably. The more you spend, the more you pay. Not a hard concept to grasp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:37:16 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless you are a government. Then you can continually go broker and broker, Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the business goes broke if he can't get customers to supply him with sufficient revenue because that is the business's only source. The owner still pays nothing. The owner has money invested in the business. How is he paying nothing if that money disappears? Also, if you think a business is failed the first time it has a bad quarter remind me never to invest with you. Businesses can run for an extended period of time in the red if people are dumb enough to give them money. Look at how long Amazon took to get out of the red. But, again, if Amazon didn't pull in enough money from its customers, it would have gone broke and the investors would have lost their investment. You have to make a profit or you go broke. Same as always. Unless you are a government. Then you can continually go broker and broker, Until you become Zimbabwe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:39:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that more folks would barter to avoid taxes. The government would step in and try to regulate, and GD would have something else to bitch about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: National sales tax. Stop taxing productivity. This. The rich would pay more, the poor would pay less. Undocumented workers would pay taxes. Tourists would pay taxes. Drug dealers would pay taxes. Meanwhile, the IRS, which costs how many billions to keep running, would no longer be needed. Except that more folks would barter to avoid taxes. The government would step in and try to regulate, and GD would have something else to bitch about. Barter is good because it stimulates output of real goods and services. But, only a fraction of folks would take advantage of that "loophole" because we've all gotten used to swiping our debit cards and going into the next store to shop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:39:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When was the last time federal spending was under tax revenues? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it’s current rate? When was the last time federal spending was under tax revenues? The 90s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:42:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 90s. See above....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:44:18 AM EDT
[#19]
All politicians love manipulating taxes for their own political purposes. It is one of the most powerful tools they have. Not one of them would ever give it up. Even those who would propose a flat tax are using that as a political tool, which would quickly go by the wayside when the next opportunity to manipulate it arises.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:44:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @mnew007 On January 8, 1835, president Andrew Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. The last federal budget surplus was in 2001. Anytime someone wants to argue tax revenues in relation to federal spending I want to kick puppies. It's been almost 200 years since the country was debt free and over two decades since spending was under revenue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @Hamiltbl2 I know this is probably a trick question, and I could google the answer, but it actually is an interesting thought exercise to see if there ever was a time... Perhaps early after the Revolutionary War? But then we probably had issued war bonds to France, or other allies perhaps. Prior to income tax, all revenue was from duties, so perhaps in the early 1800s? I dunno man, good question. Now off to google to basically be told never (I'm guessing). @mnew007 On January 8, 1835, president Andrew Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. The last federal budget surplus was in 2001. Anytime someone wants to argue tax revenues in relation to federal spending I want to kick puppies. It's been almost 200 years since the country was debt free and over two decades since spending was under revenue. Debt free is different than non-deficits (ie balanced budget). At some point, we need to start paying down that debt. As it continues to grow and interest rates are forced to rise to combat inflation, there will come a time that just the interest on the debt exceeds total tax revenue. Then we are Zimbabwe. There's no way to "inflate our way out of the problem" here, as they found out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:46:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If someone spends a million or two on a boat, they'll pay a lot more than somebody buying a jet ski yet both would be paying the same percentage of their expenditures in taxes. That's what makes it equitable in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A flat sales tax would not disproportionately fall on anyone. That's the whole point. Every citizen of the republic should share the cost equally. If one person pays $4,000 of their $20,000 and another pays $40,000 of his $6,000,000 who has paid more? They both paid 20% of what they spent on consumer goods… More in what context? A higher percentage of what they spend? No, they both pay the same percentage of what they spend. That is what makes it equitable in the first place. The spending of federal and state governments per citizen is about 30K. Many citizens are past their income tax paying years. Many citizens have not reached the age of full time employment and paying income tax yet. Per typical working age citizen, we need 40K in income tax. A working age citizen paying 4K in income tax is a net loss. They are a liability not paying their share of the costs. The guy paying 40K is. Some guy paying 120k in income taxes in throwing down three times their share. Regardless of what someone makes, 120K in income tax is three times their share of the bill. If someone spends a million or two on a boat, they'll pay a lot more than somebody buying a jet ski yet both would be paying the same percentage of their expenditures in taxes. That's what makes it equitable in the first place. That is what makes YOU say it is equitable. 30K per every living citizen or 40K per working age citizen is the share divided up equally. Paying 40K is paying an equal share of the costs. Words like equitable, equity, and fair share are just ways to say people that suck at life should not have to pay an equal share, and people that don’t have to chip in and cover them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:49:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, this is wrong. Each is paying the exact same percentage of their spending. 17% of whatever you spend is 17% of whatever you spend. Each is paying equitably. The more you spend, the more you pay. Not a hard concept to grasp. There is that word equitably again. All it means is if we split a $100 pizza, if I make 10x as much as you I should pay 90$ to eat 50 bucks worth of pizza and you pay 10 dollars to eat 50 bucks worth of pizza. You are not paying your equal share of the costs. You can come up with a lot of words trying to say you are, but you are not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 10:49:48 AM EDT
[#23]
Yes
The IRS, amendments 16&17 and a host of other things are used by uncle sugar to control………you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:03:57 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dude, you are so fucking mistaken. The failing of the Articles of Confederation was the inability to tax the public. That’s why the Constitution was written originally. It prohibits taxing some states at different rates, that’s hanging you up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yup. Considering no where in the Constituion does it state the federal gov has the power to tax the People The taxation powers in accordance with the Constitution strictly deal with the Fed ability to tax the State The People are not mentioned therefore there is no authority created to tax the People Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Sixteenth Amendment The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Dude, you are so fucking mistaken. The failing of the Articles of Confederation was the inability to tax the public. That’s why the Constitution was written originally. It prohibits taxing some states at different rates, that’s hanging you up. Who’s piss bucket you carrying here. Your angle and agenda are questionable, at best... Your utter lack of understanding of the big picture which is the Constitution is laughable By your convoluted logic in attempt to convince folks that taxing the People was original intent is derp ”The failing of the Articles of Confederation was the inability to tax the public. That’s why the Constitution was written originally” You should go ahead and explain as to why taxing the People’s income had been held unconstitutional from the time of the drafting of the Constitution, up until the fukin Communists began embedding themselves in the American gov in the early 1900s The Constitution is based on restricting the federal Govs ability to directly reach and rule the People It was designed to have the federal gov ONLY deal with the States. Created as such to avoid the almighty overlord syndrome that the framers has been dealing with via the oppressive Act(s) of the king of England forced upon the People of the Colonies |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:08:47 AM EDT
[#25]
america is NOT supposed to have any income tax
tarrifs that's it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:09:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FPNI Every line of the tax code was bought and paid for. And the middle class wasn't the group doing the buying. True Let’s not forget the costs of earning that income for the workers that cannot be deducted It’s a one sided game stacked against the workers Payroll employees can not deduct 100% their fuel food housing clothing et al expenses Yet business can deduct every single fukin dime That’s where the current system is the most broken. It’s broken in a lot of places but the unequal application of deductions is a big one Which is exactly where a flat sales tax on new goods for all would balance the scales a bit |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:23:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If someone spends a million or two on a boat, they'll pay a lot more than somebody buying a jet ski yet both would be paying the same percentage of their expenditures in taxes. That's what makes it equitable in the first place. Wrong in my world. Both have set costs of services provided by the government. Why should boat guy pay more for those services than jet ski guy? If national defense is $5 per person, why are you making boat guy pay $100 for that service? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:28:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Coming from TN, a state that has sales tax but no income tax, I'm an advocate for a national sales tax as the best idea. It's simple, captures people that get their money under the table, and would require a minute fraction of federal drones as compared to now to administer. In fact, it's so perfect it will never be chosen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:34:34 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is what makes YOU say it is equitable. 30K per every living citizen or 40K per working age citizen is the share divided up equally. Paying 40K is paying an equal share of the costs. Words like equitable, equity, and fair share are just ways to say people that suck at life should not have to pay an equal share, and people that don’t have to chip in and cover them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A flat sales tax would not disproportionately fall on anyone. That's the whole point. Every citizen of the republic should share the cost equally. If one person pays $4,000 of their $20,000 and another pays $40,000 of his $6,000,000 who has paid more? They both paid 20% of what they spent on consumer goods… More in what context? A higher percentage of what they spend? No, they both pay the same percentage of what they spend. That is what makes it equitable in the first place. The spending of federal and state governments per citizen is about 30K. Many citizens are past their income tax paying years. Many citizens have not reached the age of full time employment and paying income tax yet. Per typical working age citizen, we need 40K in income tax. A working age citizen paying 4K in income tax is a net loss. They are a liability not paying their share of the costs. The guy paying 40K is. Some guy paying 120k in income taxes in throwing down three times their share. Regardless of what someone makes, 120K in income tax is three times their share of the bill. If someone spends a million or two on a boat, they'll pay a lot more than somebody buying a jet ski yet both would be paying the same percentage of their expenditures in taxes. That's what makes it equitable in the first place. That is what makes YOU say it is equitable. 30K per every living citizen or 40K per working age citizen is the share divided up equally. Paying 40K is paying an equal share of the costs. Words like equitable, equity, and fair share are just ways to say people that suck at life should not have to pay an equal share, and people that don’t have to chip in and cover them. Nonsense. If everyone gets taxed at the same percentage, that is precisely the definition of equitable. No favorites, no special tax breaks provided by high-dollar lobbyists, all that crap goes away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:41:45 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is that word equitably again. All it means is if we split a $100 pizza, if I make 10x as much as you I should pay 90$ to eat 50 bucks worth of pizza and you pay 10 dollars to eat 50 bucks worth of pizza. You are not paying your equal share of the costs. You can come up with a lot of words trying to say you are, but you are not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, this is wrong. Each is paying the exact same percentage of their spending. 17% of whatever you spend is 17% of whatever you spend. Each is paying equitably. The more you spend, the more you pay. Not a hard concept to grasp. There is that word equitably again. All it means is if we split a $100 pizza, if I make 10x as much as you I should pay 90$ to eat 50 bucks worth of pizza and you pay 10 dollars to eat 50 bucks worth of pizza. You are not paying your equal share of the costs. You can come up with a lot of words trying to say you are, but you are not. Wrong again. If everyone pays the same percentage, then it is equitable. It matters not what your income is, only what you spend. Spend the same, get taxed the same amount. Spend more, get taxed more. Again, this isn't a hard concept to master. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:44:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong in my world. Both have set costs of services provided by the government. Why should boat guy pay more for those services than jet ski guy? If national defense is $5 per person, why are you making boat guy pay $100 for that service? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If someone spends a million or two on a boat, they'll pay a lot more than somebody buying a jet ski yet both would be paying the same percentage of their expenditures in taxes. That's what makes it equitable in the first place. Wrong in my world. Both have set costs of services provided by the government. Why should boat guy pay more for those services than jet ski guy? If national defense is $5 per person, why are you making boat guy pay $100 for that service? They pay based on what they spend, not on what they make. This encourages and rewards success (and saving) unlike the current Byzantine tax model which rewards malinvestment and rewards skirting taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:45:41 AM EDT
[#32]
Ironic that this thread has devolved into a bunch of middle and upper class types arguing about the best way to make the poor pay their fair share.
Would we charge this sales tax on rent? On loans? On insurance products? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:46:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong again. If everyone pays the same percentage, then it is equitable. It matters not what your income is, only what you spend. Spend the same, get taxed the same amount. Spend more, get taxed more. Again, this isn't a hard concept to master. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:50:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it's current rate? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: National sales tax locked in forever at 8%. Nothing else, ever. How are you going to reduce federal spending to 1/8th it's current rate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 12:00:56 PM EDT
[#35]
That first post thing proves correct again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 12:06:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ironic that this thread has devolved into a bunch of middle and upper class types arguing about the best way to make the poor pay their fair share. Would we charge this sales tax on rent? On loans? On insurance products? Let me sum up the opinion of a lot of people here: If people would just stop being poor this wouldn’t be a problem. If they continue to be poor we can just incarcerate them when they cant pay their “fair share” of taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 12:14:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Op, yes. That is exactly why it will never happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 12:17:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly the opposite. A sales tax removes the impediment to upward mobility. Right now, the middle class is the stuckee on the bulk of the taxes. The poor pay nothing (or very little), and the very wealthy have tax carve-outs for things no one else can take advantage of. If you are in the middle class, the more successful you become, the more you are penalized for that success. In short, the current tax code disadvantages upward mobility, not the other way around. Again, taxes on gross economic activity reduce activity at the margin. Say I have a project with total costs of $90K and a market value of $100K. Half of those costs are for labor, but my employees don't pay any net income tax because my pay scale tops out at $25/hour. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is on profits, it could be 90% and the project would still net me $1000. I'd just have to hire enough people to do a couple hundred of these projects to make a good living...but the rate isn't 90% on profits, it's a progressive rate on income, so I can probably survive at least as well as my employees just doing a few projects a year. Yes, it's true that if I do 20-30 projects the profit on each one will be lower than the last, but there will be a profit, even on the last one. I'm still better off building my business and employing more people. Now, same project with a 20% sales tax. My labor costs are 20% higher, because the cost of living is 20% higher, so I've got no profit margin at all, and I still haven't paid the sales tax on my project. I'm going to lose $20K on each project completed, so I'm not going to complete any. I'm out of business, and my employees are out of work. Because larger entities can operate on lower margins, gross activity/sales taxes impose significant barriers to entry on individuals and small businesses, and big businesses can squeeze competitors out much easier. 90% of economic activity in the US occurs at under 4% profit margin, nature of an efficient marketplace. We get by with the sales taxes we have, but they do have negative impacts on small business, upward mobility, and marginal enterprise. Trying to run the entire government on sales taxes is only good for the very biggest players. And that's not even getting into the problems with taxing all existing savings a second time when the changeover occurs, even if provisions are made for it those revenues have to be collected somewhere. I don't know whether Mike Huckabee is a shill or just a moron, but either way he and the rest of the sales tax crowd sold conservatives a bag of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 12:22:18 PM EDT
[#39]
The fact that the government spends way beyond its income is proof that tax is not needed at all. Income taxes at this point serve entirely as a means of moving money from the productive to the unproductive. Abolish all income taxes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 12:24:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No need to match current revenue. REAL NEED to CUT 50% of federal staff, departments and agencies that are not even Constitutional. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't believe that it would stop at 10%. According to the data, the top 50% pay at least 16%, and they also pay 96.9% of all taxes paid. A 10% tax would be a cut for the entire top half, and it would NOT create as much tax revenue as we currently take in. You and I both know that .gov ain't gonna go without its money, so if we wanted a flat tax that matched current revenue, the tax rate would have to be at least 20%, if not higher. No need to match current revenue. REAL NEED to CUT 50% of federal staff, departments and agencies that are not even Constitutional. Well... we spend right about twice what we take in, so even if we cut 50% of .fed (which would be a terrific thing), we'd still need to match current revenue if you want a balanced budget instead of debt and funny-money printing. If you want 10% flat, and .gov can only spend what comes in, I think you'd have to cut 75-80% of the fed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily against that... it's just not going to happen in the real world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 1:57:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, this is wrong. Each is paying the exact same percentage of their spending. 17% of whatever you spend is 17% of whatever you spend. Each is paying equitably. The more you spend, the more you pay. Not a hard concept to grasp. Except that it has ZERO correlation with equitable funding of the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:02:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nonsense. If everyone gets taxed at the same percentage, that is precisely the definition of equitable. No favorites, no special tax breaks provided by high-dollar lobbyists, all that crap goes away. See post #22. That describes your view of taxation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:03:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong again. If everyone pays the same percentage, then it is equitable. It matters not what your income is, only what you spend. Spend the same, get taxed the same amount. Spend more, get taxed more. Again, this isn't a hard concept to master. It is for you. Stop your love affair with percentage. Change "percentage" to "same amount for a given service/product." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:04:28 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ironic that this thread has devolved into a bunch of middle and upper class types arguing about the best way to make the poor pay their fair share. Would we charge this sales tax on rent? On loans? On insurance products? Too many people pay little or no federal taxes. That needs to end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:06:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the government spends way beyond its income is proof that tax is not needed at all. Income taxes at this point serve entirely as a means of moving money from the productive to the unproductive. Abolish all income taxes. What I get from this is that we need to stop supporting unproductive people. AS I noted recently, we don't need more help for the poor, we need less poor people. Ending welfare for bastard kids is a good start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:17:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What gets taxed, and what doesn't under your flat sales tax plan? Real estate? US stocks? Vehicles? Gold? Foreign stocks? Clothes? Grocery food? Restaurant food? Gas? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wrong again. If everyone pays the same percentage, then it is equitable. It matters not what your income is, only what you spend. Spend the same, get taxed the same amount. Spend more, get taxed more. Again, this isn't a hard concept to master. Typically, the consideration is that everything would be taxed when it's sold. I've seen a bunch of proposals but then you're only trading one morass of ridiculous tax code for another when you start down that path. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:18:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me sum up the opinion of a lot of people here: If people would just stop being poor this wouldn’t be a problem. If they continue to be poor we can just incarcerate them when they cant pay their “fair share” of taxes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ironic that this thread has devolved into a bunch of middle and upper class types arguing about the best way to make the poor pay their fair share. Would we charge this sales tax on rent? On loans? On insurance products? Let me sum up the opinion of a lot of people here: If people would just stop being poor this wouldn’t be a problem. If they continue to be poor we can just incarcerate them when they cant pay their “fair share” of taxes. No, if there were more *opportunities* for the poor, they wouldn't be poor. But, Dimocrats love them some plantations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:20:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, taxes on gross economic activity reduce activity at the margin. Say I have a project with total costs of $90K and a market value of $100K. Half of those costs are for labor, but my employees don't pay any net income tax because my pay scale tops out at $25/hour. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is on profits, it could be 90% and the project would still net me $1000. I'd just have to hire enough people to do a couple hundred of these projects to make a good living...but the rate isn't 90% on profits, it's a progressive rate on income, so I can probably survive at least as well as my employees just doing a few projects a year. Yes, it's true that if I do 20-30 projects the profit on each one will be lower than the last, but there will be a profit, even on the last one. I'm still better off building my business and employing more people. Now, same project with a 20% sales tax. My labor costs are 20% higher, because the cost of living is 20% higher, so I've got no profit margin at all, and I still haven't paid the sales tax on my project. I'm going to lose $20K on each project completed, so I'm not going to complete any. I'm out of business, and my employees are out of work. Because larger entities can operate on lower margins, gross activity/sales taxes impose significant barriers to entry on individuals and small businesses, and big businesses can squeeze competitors out much easier. 90% of economic activity in the US occurs at under 4% profit margin, nature of an efficient marketplace. We get by with the sales taxes we have, but they do have negative impacts on small business, upward mobility, and marginal enterprise. Trying to run the entire government on sales taxes is only good for the very biggest players. And that's not even getting into the problems with taxing all existing savings a second time when the changeover occurs, even if provisions are made for it those revenues have to be collected somewhere. I don't know whether Mike Huckabee is a shill or just a moron, but either way he and the rest of the sales tax crowd sold conservatives a bag of shit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Exactly the opposite. A sales tax removes the impediment to upward mobility. Right now, the middle class is the stuckee on the bulk of the taxes. The poor pay nothing (or very little), and the very wealthy have tax carve-outs for things no one else can take advantage of. If you are in the middle class, the more successful you become, the more you are penalized for that success. In short, the current tax code disadvantages upward mobility, not the other way around. Again, taxes on gross economic activity reduce activity at the margin. Say I have a project with total costs of $90K and a market value of $100K. Half of those costs are for labor, but my employees don't pay any net income tax because my pay scale tops out at $25/hour. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is on profits, it could be 90% and the project would still net me $1000. I'd just have to hire enough people to do a couple hundred of these projects to make a good living...but the rate isn't 90% on profits, it's a progressive rate on income, so I can probably survive at least as well as my employees just doing a few projects a year. Yes, it's true that if I do 20-30 projects the profit on each one will be lower than the last, but there will be a profit, even on the last one. I'm still better off building my business and employing more people. Now, same project with a 20% sales tax. My labor costs are 20% higher, because the cost of living is 20% higher, so I've got no profit margin at all, and I still haven't paid the sales tax on my project. I'm going to lose $20K on each project completed, so I'm not going to complete any. I'm out of business, and my employees are out of work. Because larger entities can operate on lower margins, gross activity/sales taxes impose significant barriers to entry on individuals and small businesses, and big businesses can squeeze competitors out much easier. 90% of economic activity in the US occurs at under 4% profit margin, nature of an efficient marketplace. We get by with the sales taxes we have, but they do have negative impacts on small business, upward mobility, and marginal enterprise. Trying to run the entire government on sales taxes is only good for the very biggest players. And that's not even getting into the problems with taxing all existing savings a second time when the changeover occurs, even if provisions are made for it those revenues have to be collected somewhere. I don't know whether Mike Huckabee is a shill or just a moron, but either way he and the rest of the sales tax crowd sold conservatives a bag of shit. No, they typically don't. Typically, the Byzantine nature of the current tax code causes malinvestment rather that economic activity. Remove that impediment which favors some over others and you remove obstacles to success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:21:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that it has ZERO correlation with equitable funding of the government. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, this is wrong. Each is paying the exact same percentage of their spending. 17% of whatever you spend is 17% of whatever you spend. Each is paying equitably. The more you spend, the more you pay. Not a hard concept to grasp. Except that it has ZERO correlation with equitable funding of the government. It is the definition of equitable funding of the government because everyone is penalized (via the same tax rate) equally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 2:23:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: See post #22. That describes your view of taxation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nonsense. If everyone gets taxed at the same percentage, that is precisely the definition of equitable. No favorites, no special tax breaks provided by high-dollar lobbyists, all that crap goes away. See post #22. That describes your view of taxation. No, see my posts for my view of taxation. A national sales tax provides the most equitable distribution of tax burden (ie the same percentage for everybody) to the citizenry. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
