jjburtzel Wrote:Can you back this up with data or models?

I could probably find some.

I don't have time.

Think it through. It's a matter of common sense:

<a href='http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/tax/brackets.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/t...ax/brackets.asp</a>

Schadenfreude Wrote:

jjburtzel Wrote:Can you back this up with data or models?

I could probably find some.

I don't have time.

Think it through. It's a matter of common sense:

<a href='http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/tax/brackets.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/t...ax/brackets.asp</a>

Only to you, Schad...only to you.

To me and I have no background in economics or economic policy, but a sales tax is a great way to keep up with inflation and I don't get the argument that the rich won't have to pay more. They buy a lot more. Schad's an intelligent individual though so he may know something more about this than me.

Dogger Wrote:To me and I have no background in economics or economic policy, but a sales tax is a great way to keep up with inflation and I don't get the argument that the rich won't have to pay more. They buy a lot more. Schad's an intelligent individual though so he may know something more about this than me.

In general, middle-class and poor families pay a higher proportion of their incomes toward sales taxes than do the wealthy, even in states that do not tax essentials such as food.

It's a slight disparity -- but still an inversion of the principle of the progressive income tax.

And I guess I assumed the proposal on the table was for a flat income tax.

But whether we are talking about a federal sales tax or a flat income tax, we are talking about a proposal to deliver a tax cut to the wealthy and sock it to the middle class on a scale that would make Bush's recent tax cut for the wealthy seem miniscule (and it wasn't).

It's a flat sales tax and you could give an exemption to people in poverty.

There would be no exemptions for businesses or the wealthy. How could this sock it to the middle class. Everybody is a consumer and the rich buy a heck of aot more than the middle class. I don't see the rich getting over on us.

Quote:A flat tax will do one of two things:

1. Starve the federal government of revenue it needs to keep our country strong by providing for the national defense, supporting our senior citizens, preserving our national parks, paying for roads and bridges and so on.

Translation: A Flat tax would force government to prioritize spending thus eliminating government hand outs that keep people poor and impoverished thus shrinking the democratic voting base.

However a flat tax would only temporarily decrease revenues because the tax in itself is an incentive for people to go out and work. Because they would take home more of their own money.

It would also greatly help the small business owner, the backbone of this country. By paying a flat tax the ridiculous tax burden that small business owners face today would be eliminated. Thus, with more money in their pocket, they can invest in more employees, better benefits for those employees and invest it in overall growth of their business, thus increasing revenue, thus increasing the amount they pay in taxes.

It would also eliminate the double taxation of dividends, which is flat out wrong by any reasonable thought process.

Quote:2. Or, if the flat tax was revenue neutral, it would sock the middle class of this country with one of the largest tax increases in the history of humanity, all so the wealthy can pay less.

Nice try, but as usual you have no facts to back up your assertion. The fact is the middle class in this country pay between 25 and 33% in income taxes. A flat tax of 17 to 19%, which is what most advocates propose, would DECREASE their taxes, not increase them.

Quote:

Quote:Can you back this up with data or models?

I could probably find some.

I don't have time.

Think it through. It's a matter of common sense:

Translation: No I can't, I haven't thought it through nor researched it and to do so would mean I might actually have to be challenged in what I think. I cannot take this risk, so I'll just say it's common sense to think as I do and hope no one calls me on it.



:rolleyes:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

jjburtzel Wrote:Can you back this up with data or models?

I could probably find some.

I don't have time.

Think it through. It's a matter of common sense:

<a href='http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/tax/brackets.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.enterprisefunds.com/education/t...ax/brackets.asp</a>

That table is the reason I am intrigued by the idea of a flat tax or a national sales tax. A "progressive" tax, is just the attemp to redistribute wealth. Why is that if you make more money that the government assumes that you should be willing to give a larger percentage to them? Because you can spare it? I'm glad the government knows the ins and outs of my home finances so well that it knows that it can do more good with that money than I can.

I'm going to look into this a bit more, because I would like to see what the impacts are, but looking at that table doesn't convince me that it wouldn't work.

What I think people are missing out on here is the wealthy will pay more in taxes because they are the larger consumers.

You know what is funny? People that DO NOT PAY ANY INCOME TAXES AT ALL complain about the amount of taxes paid by the rich. The Bush family could pay the taxes for the entire nation and give each of us a rebate and some people (you know who you are) would complain about it not being fair.

Schadenfreude Wrote:In general, middle-class and poor families pay a higher proportion of their incomes toward sales taxes than do the wealthy, even in states that do not tax essentials such as food.

It's a slight disparity -- but still an inversion of the principle of the progressive income tax.

Isn't that because the truly wealthy spend money in different forms, such as hiring household help or VC?

Thus, in the former they are enabling another individual to earn an income, and pay taxes.

In the latter they are fostering job creation and possibly technology development. Both offer more jobs and tax revenue.

If this isn't the case, then how are the rich spending money and not paying taxes in some form?

Honestly, I shy away from a national sales tax, b/c I think folks will figure out how to barter and lower some payments. It also tends to hurt those w/ very small, fledgling businesses.

I'm more in favor of a flat income tax. I don't even fully oppose a somewhat progressive tax, but it needs to be reformed from the complicated code we currently have.

I think the greater concern is a Fortune 50 CEO making $20 million in stock options as he closes down production. Closing down wasteful production is a good thing, but where's the re-investment to develop future markets? This doesn't just mean Intel and Microsoft. It means GE, GM, XOM etc. I'm sure that's beyond the realm of tax code, but I believe in identifying the real problems, so energies can be committed to solving them.

Dogger Wrote:What I think people are missing out on here is the wealthy will pay more in taxes because they are the larger consumers.

That's why, in theory, it sounds good to me. I mean, just looking at the tax brackets makes me crazy.

If my wife and I work hard and have a taxable income of $174,700, we'll pay around $48,916 in taxes. If we end up with 1 dollar more in taxable income, we would pay around $57651 in taxes. Make 1 more dollar, pay $8700 more dollars in taxes. Now that seems right, doesn't it? And to make matters worse, we'd have to make around $13000 more to get back to where we were before we moved up a bracket. TO BREAK EVEN, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE $13,000 MORE. That's the insanity of our current tax system.

Any thought-out talk of reform/change is welcome.

jjburtzel Wrote:[If my wife and I work hard and have a taxable income of $174,700, we'll pay around $48,916 in taxes.&nbsp; If we end up with 1 dollar more in taxable income, we would pay around $57651 in taxes.&nbsp; Make 1 more dollar, pay $8700 more dollars in taxes.&nbsp; Now that seems right, doesn't it?&nbsp; And to make matters worse, we'd have to make around $13000 more to get back to where we were before we moved up a bracket.&nbsp; TO BREAK EVEN, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE $13,000 MORE.&nbsp; That's the insanity of our current tax system.

You misunderstand how the brackets work.

Setting aside deductions and such complications, if you and your wife earned $174,700 and filed jointly, you would pay:

10% on your first $14,000 ($1,400)
15% on the next $42,800 ($6,240)
25% on the next $55,849 ($13,962.25)
28% on the next $60,049 ($16,813.72)
Total bill: $38,415.97

Your penalty for earning another dollar would be 33 cents, not $13,000.

Dogger Wrote:There would be no exemptions for businesses or the wealthy. How could this sock it to the middle class. Everybody is a consumer and the rich buy a heck of aot more than the middle class. I don't see the rich getting over on us.

????? Oh my Lord.......Dogger and I agree with each other.

Schad, it doesn't matter about proportion of income. Taxes are collected to pay for the government. The way YOU make it seem, taxes are a punishment. EVERYONE should pay the same percentage of their income to pay for the government. With a National Sales Tax, ALL pay, Ie. drug dealers, people working under the table, etc. and, since the tax will only be levied on individuals, no one will be able to twist those thousands upon thousands of tax code to their favor.

Dogger Wrote:There would be no exemptions for businesses or the wealthy.  How could this sock it to the middle class.  Everybody is a consumer and the rich buy a heck of aot more than the middle class.  I don't see the rich getting over on us.

Look at the brackets again.

Next, look at <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-5.html' target='_blank'>Dick Cheney's tax return.</a>

Now do the math.

The Cheneys paid $253,067 on taxable income of $813,226.

Under a 17 percent sales tax, the most they could possibly pay would be $138,248.*

In other words, the Cheney tax bill would cut by more than half -- perhaps far more than half, depending on their spending habits.

Who is going to pick up their tab?

Those of you who want to pay higher taxes so the Cheneys can have save an extra $114,819 each year, raise your hands. :monty:

---
* In reality, they wouldn't even pay that much. In many states, sales taxes are not applied to most services, such as lawyers, accountants, lawnmowers and snowplow drivers. Would such services be taxed in a federal system? Also, while poor families spend every dollar they earn almost as soon as they get it, it is doubtful the Cheneys have such pressing needs. They have the flexibility to sock away money in savings and to invest, meaning they would pay even less under a sales tax.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:There would be no exemptions for businesses or the wealthy.  How could this sock it to the middle class.  Everybody is a consumer and the rich buy a heck of aot more than the middle class.  I don't see the rich getting over on us.

Look at the brackets again.

Next, look at <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-5.html' target='_blank'>Dick Cheney's tax return.</a>

Now do the math.

The Cheneys paid $253,067 on taxable income of $813,226.

Under a 17 percent sales tax, the most they could possibly pay would be $138,248.*

So? The government needs to cut back some of the unnecessary spending then. With a NST they would probably pay more anyway seeing as how they are probably not buying Honda Civics, Jon Boats, or staying at the Howard Johnson Hotel. I was right, you do want to see tax as a punishment.

RebelKev Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:There would be no exemptions for businesses or the wealthy.  How could this sock it to the middle class.  Everybody is a consumer and the rich buy a heck of aot more than the middle class.  I don't see the rich getting over on us.

Look at the brackets again.

Next, look at <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-5.html' target='_blank'>Dick Cheney's tax return.</a>

Now do the math.

The Cheneys paid $253,067 on taxable income of $813,226.

Under a 17 percent sales tax, the most they could possibly pay would be $138,248.*

So? The government needs to cut back some of the unnecessary spending then.

What do you propose cutting? Medicare or the Army?

The budget is already a half a trillion dollars out of whack.

Quote:With a NST they would probably pay more anyway seeing as how they are probably not buying Honda Civics, Jon Boats, or staying at the Howard Johnson Hotel.

They can only spend based on what they earn. Seventeen percent of their 2003 taxable income is $138,248. That's the ceiling -- and it exaggerates what they actually would pay.

Quote:I was right, you do want to see tax as a punishment.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. I believe they should be shared according to people's ability to pay. That's all.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Who is going to pick up their tab?

Those of you who want to pay higher taxes so the Cheneys can have save an extra $114,819 each year, raise your hands. :monty:

the tab would be picked up, when they close all of the loopholes, like real estate deductions, charity deductions, etc.

I know you're going to want to complicate this, but in fact this argument (like many others) boils down to something very simple. Well there are many simplicities, but the big one is when people make money in straight-up, non-taxable, cash, the government doesn't see a cent. But with a national sales tax, these people will give large sums of money to the gov't when buying those big escalades. Same thing with obscenely rich people, who can hide all of their money, and, end up paying virtually nothing. When they go out and buy big cars, there's no way to hide the money.

Now i know you're going to say: 'what about the black markets that will crop up when you have a national sales tax?' naturally that will happen, but you can't worry about it. When the income tax is high, people find a way to get around it, so those two things cancel eachother out.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:There would be no exemptions for businesses or the wealthy.  How could this sock it to the middle class.  Everybody is a consumer and the rich buy a heck of aot more than the middle class.  I don't see the rich getting over on us.

Look at the brackets again.

Next, look at <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-5.html' target='_blank'>Dick Cheney's tax return.</a>

Now do the math.

The Cheneys paid $253,067 on taxable income of $813,226.

Under a 17 percent sales tax, the most they could possibly pay would be $138,248.*

So? The government needs to cut back some of the unnecessary spending then. With a NST they would probably pay more anyway seeing as how they are probably not buying Honda Civics, Jon Boats, or staying at the Howard Johnson Hotel. I was right, you do want to see tax as a punishment.

What do you propose cutting? Medicare or the Army?

The budget is already a half a trillion dollars out of whack.

Ok, you said Cheney paid 253,067 and under a NST the most(and this is a fraudulant claim on your part) would be 138,248...a difference of 114,819. I seem to remember a government-funded study of some Japanese Waterfowl mating patterns being about 500K. Cut that. THAT is the pork I am talking about. Someone wants to study it, they can take up a collection as I don't really give a rat's ***. I too Zoo I and Zoo II. I already know. ...or were they talking about courting patterns which we REALLY shouldn't be funding?

Medicaid could be cut back. Welfare could be cut back. SS could be done AWAY with, IMO. All these "fed" programs should be left up to the state. It says, "Provide for the common welfare", NOT "Provide Welfare". It's not their money to give.

Also, this:

Quote:Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. I believe they should be shared according to people's ability to pay. That's all.

is basically a tenet of Communism. I gave up the Communist Manifesto long ago.