(10-19-2017 09:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 09:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

The STATES have consumption taxes in place. My suggestion is for a NATIONAL consumption tax on top of whatever the states impose. It would not be "incredibly regressive" if certain basics are exempted. Whether on not it would sustain our revenue needs depends on two things: the rate that is set, and the amounts that are spent. I presume by sustaining our revenue, you mean the amount from FIT that covers only a small portion of our spending.

The rate might need to be anywhere from 17% to 28%. TBD.

Spending, as now, either would have to be financed by borrowing to cover the deficit, or (my preferred version), reigned in to meet the available funding. Since all citizens would be responsive to willy-nilly tax increases, the incentive for the politicians wanting to be re-elected would be the latter. Only people who want maximum spending over and above the revenue from FIT and an ever increasing national debt could possibly not like that.

Yep, I knew you wanted a national consumption tax, which is why I stated what is bolded above...

And I've got no idea what you mean by FIT, so trying to respond to a few of your comments is a bit difficult.

In one of my earlier posts, I referred to Federal Income Tax (FIT). specify this, as when we use the shorthand term, "taxes", some wise guy always come in and says everybody pays taxes.

In general, I think completely replacing FIT with a national consumption tax (don't forget my exemptions of certain basics) is good. Much more fair than FIT. According to some people to the left of me, nobody is paying their fair share except those who pay nothing. I've never heard anybody accuse anybody of not paying their fair share of sales tax. That's because the payment of it is not at the discretion of the payer.