(06-26-2017 09:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There is no way to assure that. The difference is that YOU get to decide how YOU are taxed. NO more withholding. Think about a paradigm in which those in power can NO longer reach directly into your pocket each paycheck. It takes away the ability for them to borrow against the future fruits of your labor. It forces them to budget in an entirely different manner. It makes them seek economic growth FIRST.

No YOU don't. Everything you buy gets an additional 23% added on. Since I'm already paying a 7% sales tax (6% State and 1% County) that means I'll be paying an additional 30% for EVERYTHING I buy. 32% if I go out to eat at a restaurant in town due to the 2% "tourism" tax.

On the minus side...that kind of tax is going to create a marketplace for all kinds of under the table transactions and bartering to get around the tax.
On the plus side...I'd probably start eating at home more.

Just what we need.....more lucrative markets for criminal organizations.

Just what we need....The end to corporate taxation that pushed many legitimate businesses and investments to leave our shores and a reemergence of a super strong US economy that dominates the globe. There are always going to be criminals looking to take advantage of something. We just deal with it.

So the only winners are corporations and everybody else is screwed. Lovely.

Your monthly grocery bill goes up 23% each month but Xerox gets a tax break. Gosh I wonder why this fails to get out of committee every single legislative session?

As far as evasion of consumption taxes,
1) The actual experience with consumption taxes in Europe is that evasion is quite low.
2) Particularly if it is structured as a VAT, it takes a lot of collusion to evade consumption taxes, and the maximum number of people who can keep a secret is one.
3) The rate I've come up with for my proposed approach is 15%. At that level, the return on evasion, 15 cents on the dollar, is really not worth it.
4) My proposed approach also allows that all audits can be conducted at the business level. With much fewer taxpayers to audit, audit coverage can increase significantly, improving compliance.

As far as health and welfare,
1) Using the Bismarck model, France provides universal coverage for less government spending per capita than we incur to provide less than universal coverage. If we can provide universal coverage for less than we spend now, why not?
2) Similarly, if we can provide a universal basic income for less than we currently spend on welfare, why not do it?
3) If we want to continue the current welfare hodgepodge, why not farm it out to the states (they can afford it with the money they save because Bismarck would make Medicaid redundant)?
4) The reason we can do these things is because universal programs eliminate the need for all the administrative costs of gate keeping. When the top three counties in the US for average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area, what does that tell you about how bloated our federal government is?

(06-26-2017 08:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:51 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 09:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A 2 % national sales tax. Your health care is covered. Done. End of argument.

I think a lot of us have said we're in favor of a VAT or Nat'l Sales Tax, aka, a consumption tax, Mach...

But are you going to guarantee that every dime from that is doled out appropriately once it's collected?

Exactly. They'll see these numbers coming in and within a very short period of time it too will be dumped into the GF and doled out for every pet project under the sun. It will simply turn into another Ponzi scheme like SS.

There is no way to assure that. The difference is that YOU get to decide how YOU are taxed. NO more withholding. Think about a paradigm in which those in power can NO longer reach directly into your pocket each paycheck. It takes away the ability for them to borrow against the future fruits of your labor. It forces them to budget in an entirely different manner. It makes them seek economic growth FIRST.

No YOU don't. Everything you buy gets an additional 23% added on. Since I'm already paying a 7% sales tax (6% State and 1% County) that means I'll be paying an additional 30% for EVERYTHING I buy. 32% if I go out to eat at a restaurant in town due to the 2% "tourism" tax.

The discussion got off track here Kal. We are discussing FEDERAL withholding...not state and local taxes. They would for sure remain the same. The 23% you are referring to are the imbedded federal taxes we already pay now in goods and services. The removal of those embedded taxes will spur reduction in prices through competition and after a period... cost of goods and services will equilibrate down by that percentage. You will after a period not pay any more for goods and services than before. Consumption tax proposals like HR25 are not intended to do anything but "replace" the current way we pay federal taxes through a consumption tax. When you buy NEW goods? You pay the tax. All this information is available at Fairtax.org for anyone interested in educating themselves on the topic.

(06-26-2017 09:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  No YOU don't. Everything you buy gets an additional 23% added on. Since I'm already paying a 7% sales tax (6% State and 1% County) that means I'll be paying an additional 30% for EVERYTHING I buy. 32% if I go out to eat at a restaurant in town due to the 2% "tourism" tax.

On the minus side...that kind of tax is going to create a marketplace for all kinds of under the table transactions and bartering to get around the tax.
On the plus side...I'd probably start eating at home more.

Just what we need.....more lucrative markets for criminal organizations.

Just what we need....The end to corporate taxation that pushed many legitimate businesses and investments to leave our shores and a reemergence of a super strong US economy that dominates the globe. There are always going to be criminals looking to take advantage of something. We just deal with it.

So the only winners are corporations and everybody else is screwed. Lovely.

Your monthly grocery bill goes up 23% each month but Xerox gets a tax break. Gosh I wonder why this fails to get out of committee every single legislative session?

No..actually neither businesses or the consumer win or lose. There would essentially be no change. Businesses would not have to pay the estimated 23% federal tax that they have to pass on to the consumer in the price of goods and services. That will lead businesses to be forced by competition to reduce prices by 23% and prices equilibrate to their previous levels. The positive is what this would do for our economy. Removal of corporate taxation would lead to money flowing BACK to the US. That alone would generate a boom.

Heard a presentation from Pam Olson last week. She is PWC's US Deputy Tax Leader and a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy and former head of the tax practice at Skadden, Arps, so she knows more about taxes than anybody on this board. She is a particular favorite of mine for her thoughts about the taxation process. Her opinion is that we have really no alternative but a consumption tax. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview:

"FEI Daily: What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in tax?"

"Olson: The biggest change is probably what’s happened in the rest of the world while we’ve stayed static. Every other country is changing its tax system to adapt to the changes and methods of doing business, and their increased reliance on a consumption tax, which isn’t an immobile tax base, versus relying on a corporate tax base that is very mobile. Every other country has gone in that direction. They’ve lowered their tax rates. They’ve adopted territorial systems. They’ve focused on capturing the tax based within their jurisdiction without trying to go around the world, while we have stayed focused on taxing around the world."

http://daily.financialexecutives.org/com...pam-olson/

Another interesting article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/upsho....html?_r=0

(06-26-2017 09:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:51 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I think a lot of us have said we're in favor of a VAT or Nat'l Sales Tax, aka, a consumption tax, Mach...

But are you going to guarantee that every dime from that is doled out appropriately once it's collected?

Exactly. They'll see these numbers coming in and within a very short period of time it too will be dumped into the GF and doled out for every pet project under the sun. It will simply turn into another Ponzi scheme like SS.

There is no way to assure that. The difference is that YOU get to decide how YOU are taxed. NO more withholding. Think about a paradigm in which those in power can NO longer reach directly into your pocket each paycheck. It takes away the ability for them to borrow against the future fruits of your labor. It forces them to budget in an entirely different manner. It makes them seek economic growth FIRST.

No YOU don't. Everything you buy gets an additional 23% added on. Since I'm already paying a 7% sales tax (6% State and 1% County) that means I'll be paying an additional 30% for EVERYTHING I buy. 32% if I go out to eat at a restaurant in town due to the 2% "tourism" tax.

The discussion got off track here Kal. We are discussing FEDERAL withholding...not state and local taxes. They would for sure remain the same. The 23% you are referring to are the imbedded federal taxes we already pay now in goods and services. The removal of those embedded taxes will spur reduction in prices through competition and after a period... cost of goods and services will equilibrate down by that percentage. You will after a period not pay any more for goods and services than before. Consumption tax proposals like HR25 are not intended to do anything but "replace" the current way we pay federal taxes through a consumption tax. When you buy NEW goods? You pay the tax. All this information is available at Fairtax.org for anyone interested in educating themselves on the topic.

I know that anytime the government creates something, i.e. a tax, they do not eliminate something else. So no, no one should go to that propoganda website to be brainwashed on the virtues of government taxation. No. More. New/Additional. Taxes.

Def, stop already. You're a fool embarrassing yourself.

Ostrich's don't really bury their heads in the sand. But you do.

(06-26-2017 11:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 08:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Exactly. They'll see these numbers coming in and within a very short period of time it too will be dumped into the GF and doled out for every pet project under the sun. It will simply turn into another Ponzi scheme like SS.

There is no way to assure that. The difference is that YOU get to decide how YOU are taxed. NO more withholding. Think about a paradigm in which those in power can NO longer reach directly into your pocket each paycheck. It takes away the ability for them to borrow against the future fruits of your labor. It forces them to budget in an entirely different manner. It makes them seek economic growth FIRST.

No YOU don't. Everything you buy gets an additional 23% added on. Since I'm already paying a 7% sales tax (6% State and 1% County) that means I'll be paying an additional 30% for EVERYTHING I buy. 32% if I go out to eat at a restaurant in town due to the 2% "tourism" tax.

The discussion got off track here Kal. We are discussing FEDERAL withholding...not state and local taxes. They would for sure remain the same. The 23% you are referring to are the imbedded federal taxes we already pay now in goods and services. The removal of those embedded taxes will spur reduction in prices through competition and after a period... cost of goods and services will equilibrate down by that percentage. You will after a period not pay any more for goods and services than before. Consumption tax proposals like HR25 are not intended to do anything but "replace" the current way we pay federal taxes through a consumption tax. When you buy NEW goods? You pay the tax. All this information is available at Fairtax.org for anyone interested in educating themselves on the topic.

I know that anytime the government creates something, i.e. a tax, they do not eliminate something else. So no, no one should go to that propoganda website to be brainwashed on the virtues of government taxation. No. More. New/Additional. Taxes.

You are obviously unfamiliar with the Fair Tax.

(06-26-2017 06:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The solution is obvious--Bismarck, funded by a consumption tax (which also balances the budget after reduction of individual and corporate income tax rates to world-competitive levels).

Universal care, controls cost, provides a viable free market for those who want something better.

Whether it is so obvious that republicans can figure it out is another matter.

But how are you going to convince Republicans to pass a new tax? Existing taxes, as is, are anathema to Republicans, so they aren't going to pass something that adds a new tax. That's not even on the table.

The bill as written now is mainly about a tax cut for the wealthy ...

Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

(06-26-2017 09:14 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  HR25 is an additional tax. Why you believe the falsehood about the 16th amendment getting abolished is beyond me.

No it's not. Hush your pie hole about things you're so obviously and tragically ill informed of.

(06-26-2017 05:02 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  As many as 11,000 more people have died each year since Obamacare was implemented.

I didnt think this was true, but I had to look it up for myself.

(06-27-2017 08:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 06:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The solution is obvious--Bismarck, funded by a consumption tax (which also balances the budget after reduction of individual and corporate income tax rates to world-competitive levels).
Universal care, controls cost, provides a viable free market for those who want something better.
Whether it is so obvious that republicans can figure it out is another matter.

But how are you going to convince Republicans to pass a new tax? Existing taxes, as is, are anathema to Republicans, so they aren't going to pass something that adds a new tax. That's not even on the table.
The bill as written now is mainly about a tax cut for the wealthy ...

Republicans want to balance the budget (or at least they claim they do) and to make individual and corporate income tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. A consumption tax is the only way to do that. France actually does Bismarck for less government spending per capita on health care than our government spends on our system, so it's not a given that Bismarck would require more taxes. While we are at it, replace the welfare hodgepodge with a universal basic income, again without a significant increase in spending required. You end up providing a better safety net at the bottom while being more attractive to investment and growth at the top. Hard combination to beat.

As for the "mainly a tax cut for the wealthy" part, number one how do you get that (other than parroting talking points that you've heard from the left), and number two quite frankly they (and corporations) NEED a tax cut if we are going to stay competitive in the global economy.

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

(06-27-2017 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 06:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The solution is obvious--Bismarck, funded by a consumption tax (which also balances the budget after reduction of individual and corporate income tax rates to world-competitive levels).
Universal care, controls cost, provides a viable free market for those who want something better.
Whether it is so obvious that republicans can figure it out is another matter.

But how are you going to convince Republicans to pass a new tax? Existing taxes, as is, are anathema to Republicans, so they aren't going to pass something that adds a new tax. That's not even on the table.
The bill as written now is mainly about a tax cut for the wealthy ...

Republicans want to balance the budget (or at least they claim they do) and to make individual and corporate income tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. A consumption tax is the only way to do that. France actually does Bismarck for less government spending per capita on health care than our government spends on our system, so it's not a given that Bismarck would require more taxes. While we are at it, replace the welfare hodgepodge with a universal basic income, again without a significant increase in spending required. You end up providing a better safety net at the bottom while being more attractive to investment and growth at the top. Hard combination to beat.

As for the "mainly a tax cut for the wealthy" part, number one how do you get that (other than parroting talking points that you've heard from the left), and number two quite frankly they (and corporations) NEED a tax cut if we are going to stay competitive in the global economy.

I get the principles behind this proposal, but it simply won't work. What will happen is universal basic income recipients will blow their basic income on electronics, rims, booze, drugs, and sex and will still require the welfare hodgepodge to eat, sleep under a roof, and offload their kids all summer. As compassionate Americans, we will end up with a universal basic income PLUS the welfare hodgepodge.

(06-27-2017 09:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the CBO score for the Senate version was about like the House versions: many Americans will lose coverage and/or benefits.

http://www.startribune.com/trump-scrambl...430787753/

Quote:The Senate Republican health care bill would leave 22 million more Americans uninsured in 2026 than under President Barack Obama's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, complicating GOP leaders' hopes of pushing the plan through the chamber this week.

So do you take that risk? Or do you just throw up your hands and move on to tax reform?

I really think McConnell is fully prepared to do either, and will force a vote next week one way or another.

From what I understand about the CBO scoring...the 22M number of those who will not have health insurance includes those who will opt of their own free will to not carry coverage because there is no mandate.

Yep, funny to watch the Dems spin that and their followers lap it up.

(06-27-2017 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans want to balance the budget (or at least they claim they do) and to make individual and corporate income tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. A consumption tax is the only way to do that. France actually does Bismarck for less government spending per capita on health care than our government spends on our system,

c'mom man. The French for the most part live far healthier lifestyles. They walk more and eat better.

It's not a fair comparison. We are one of (if not THE) the fattest nations on the planet. That has nothing to do with our health care or health insurance. You can't compare spending per capita for us to France, Japan, etc. You would have to normalize the numbers somehow to account for all the lardasses here.

In other words if we got as fit as they are I would expect our numbers to drop significantly.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-22-2017 01:42 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:The Senate GOP’s health care bill is a strange document. It doesn’t fix what conservatives dislike most about Obamacare. But it takes what everyone else hates about Obamacare and makes it much, much worse.

The plan keeps Obamacare’s basic structure intact. The tax credits remain tied to income. Many of the insurance regulations remain in place. Medicaid is, in theory, gutted down the road, but the cuts don’t even begin until 2021 — raising the fear for conservatives that they’ll never happen at all. Even the cost-sharing reductions to insurers — which Republicans bemoaned as an illegal “bailout” — are restored.

So Obamacare — the government program that makes it the state’s responsibility to cover people with health insurance — mostly survives. If you are a conservative angry that the federal government has created a new health care entitlement, this bill doesn’t solve your problem.

The Senate health bill takes what Americans hate about Obamacare and makes it worse

So are you admitting now that americans hate Obamacare?

I don't think most Americans understand the ACA.

(06-27-2017 09:20 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans want to balance the budget (or at least they claim they do) and to make individual and corporate income tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. A consumption tax is the only way to do that. France actually does Bismarck for less government spending per capita on health care than our government spends on our system,

c'mom man. The French for the most part live far healthier lifestyles. They walk more and eat better.
It's not a fair comparison. We are one of (f not THE) the fattest nations on the planet. That has nothing to do with our health care or health insurance. You can't compare spending per capita for us to France, Japan, etc. You would have to normalize the numbers somehow to account for all the lardasses here.
In other words if we got as fit as they are I would expect our numbers to drop significantly.
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

They smoke more. Far more. Not sure who comes out better, net net.

And so what if we can't get all the way to their metrics? If we improve ours significantly, isn't that a win?