Sorry.... my quote feature isn't working.... but this is regarding the discussion between (I think) Frizzy, OO and 93....

The terms 'income' and 'percentage' are being used repeatedly, including references to what the various rates are that people pay.

This is precisely the sort of discussion and use of terms that keeps a consumption/vat from being implemented.

income taxes are paid on income. The wealthy report little income, so they pay little in taxes. The poor and middle class report every dime... and the middle to upper (but still not wealthy) pay the highest rates because they have the fewest deductions, are a massive group of people and the government needs a lot of money.

The purpose of a consumption or vat is to disassociate taxes from income.... for the very reason that the wealthy don't often report much income. We are not yet discussing whether we replace it entirely with VAT... lets do that once we discuss the virtues of VAT.

Whether we get 20% of the spending from the wealthy or 22% of the income from the middle class is irrelevant.... because those aren't the same denominators. For some wealthy people, you're talking about getting 20% of their spending vs 0 now, and 15% of their 'income' (which is actually gains) vs (because of the prefund) 0% of the spending from the middle class and 22% of their 'income'. Compared to what we do today, this is MORE... and it ALL comes from the biggest spenders, regardless of how much income they report.

Because the poor and middle class think like workers... they think in terms of income... The wealthy do not. That's why they don't care about income tax rates.

The left often responds to this by saying that we should raise gains taxes... but if you'll recall, rates were actually higher under 41. Clinton took them lower because we weren't globally competitive. 43 took them even lower so its possible that there could be SOME adjustment there... but even most democrats (who aren't running for office and trying to appeal to what the common man knows, which isn't much) seem to understand that you can't take gains much higher without running off businesses. If they didn't, Clinton wouldn't have done it.... and Obama certainly would have taken them higher.