You can't fix stupidity! As stated in the BIBLE, you will always have the poor!

(01-29-2015 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 08:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 03:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 11:42 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 11:17 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So it's fair for people to leach off the system and pay nothing? Is it fair for someone with a lot of money to bribe politicians so that they very little? Is it fair for me to bribe the refs so that the Seahawks win this weekend?

It isn't fair to bribe people who are making the rules/laws into making them favor you.

The only "fair" that matters is how folks are operating under the rule of law. If what they're doing is legal it is fair. I don't have to like it but it's fair. My feelings really don't f----ing matter.

Not when they buy people to change the laws in their favor. That's a rigged system.

OK.... the solution is a consumption tax then. That's the most fair way to do it. You're taxed on what you buy. IMO this would help people to become more fiscally responsible.

I doubt that, people are already taxed on what they buy and it hasn't made any difference. At best you could do this incrementally. Sorry if someone has described this already but for poor people, how do you keep them from being severely worse off than they are now?

If they make $10 per hour, they will get a $400 paycheck at the end of the week instead of a $300 paycheck. That would keep them from being severely worse off I would think.

(01-29-2015 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 08:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  OK.... the solution is a consumption tax then. That's the most fair way to do it. You're taxed on what you buy. IMO this would help people to become more fiscally responsible.

I doubt that, people are already taxed on what they buy and it hasn't made any difference. At best you could do this incrementally. Sorry if someone has described this already but for poor people, how do you keep them from being severely worse off than they are now?

I don't think it's really not complicated as it seems. The consumption tax would be higher than current sales taxes are right now. The poor don't buy nearly as much stuff anyway, they'll no longer have income taxes and they'll still get their gov't assistance. The rich will still buy things the rest of us can't afford. The middle class might change some of their spending habits.

The bottom line is that the US is a consumer society, that's not going to change when you look at the big picture. What you'll have is SOME restructuring of spending habits across the middle class. I think more than likely the revenue the gov't receives would be a wash but it would benefit more individuals in the proces.

(01-29-2015 09:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 08:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  OK.... the solution is a consumption tax then. That's the most fair way to do it. You're taxed on what you buy. IMO this would help people to become more fiscally responsible.

I doubt that, people are already taxed on what they buy and it hasn't made any difference. At best you could do this incrementally. Sorry if someone has described this already but for poor people, how do you keep them from being severely worse off than they are now?

I don't think it's really not complicated as it seems. The consumption tax would be higher than current sales taxes are right now. The poor don't buy nearly as much stuff anyway, they'll no longer have income taxes and they'll still get their gov't assistance. The rich will still buy things the rest of us can't afford. The middle class might change some of their spending habits.

The bottom line is that the US is a consumer society, that's not going to change when you look at the big picture. What you'll have is SOME restructuring of spending habits across the middle class. I think more than likely the revenue the gov't receives would be a wash but it would benefit more individuals in the proces.

They would have to get more government assistance than they do now since the consumer prices would go up by more than the small amount they currently pay in taxes (and if the zillion threads on here about half the population not paying taxes is correct, then their overall cost would go up by even more).

(01-29-2015 09:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 08:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  OK.... the solution is a consumption tax then. That's the most fair way to do it. You're taxed on what you buy. IMO this would help people to become more fiscally responsible.

I doubt that, people are already taxed on what they buy and it hasn't made any difference. At best you could do this incrementally. Sorry if someone has described this already but for poor people, how do you keep them from being severely worse off than they are now?

I don't think it's really not complicated as it seems. The consumption tax would be higher than current sales taxes are right now. The poor don't buy nearly as much stuff anyway, they'll no longer have income taxes and they'll still get their gov't assistance. The rich will still buy things the rest of us can't afford. The middle class might change some of their spending habits.

The bottom line is that the US is a consumer society, that's not going to change when you look at the big picture. What you'll have is SOME restructuring of spending habits across the middle class. I think more than likely the revenue the gov't receives would be a wash but it would benefit more individuals in the proces.

Exactly. And they'll still get their food stamps and, since only new goods are taxed, they will still be able to buy clothes at thrift stores and used cars without being subject to the tax. If they want to spend their paycheck on the new Jordans or xBox game, they'll pay the tax with their larger paycheck.

(01-29-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  They would have to get more government assistance than they do now since the consumer prices would go up by more than the small amount they currently pay in taxes (and if the zillion threads on here about half the population not paying taxes is correct, then their overall cost would go up by even more).

They still wouldn't be paying income tax anymore. If you're talking about the people living in poverty I can see your point but they've got a lot bigger problems honestly. I'm thinking folks in the lower to lower-middle classes.

(01-29-2015 10:07 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  They would have to get more government assistance than they do now since the consumer prices would go up by more than the small amount they currently pay in taxes (and if the zillion threads on here about half the population not paying taxes is correct, then their overall cost would go up by even more).

They still wouldn't be paying income tax anymore. If you're talking about the people living in poverty I can see your point but they've got a lot bigger problems honestly. I'm thinking folks in the lower to lower-middle classes.

I'm talking anybody that makes an amount that results in them not paying much in taxes. They ALL will end up paying more. And the people living in poverty would be included, you think money doesn't result in most of their problems?

OK... so should the folks in poverty be exempt? Should there be some kind of "consumption tax" welfare waiver for them? You've asked several questions about consumption tax. I (or somebody else) has answered them to the best of our ability. Apparently those answers have at least been somewhat efficient except for... What happens with people living in poverty? No offense but stop asking questions and give me some answers if you think there's a better way we could revise our system.

(01-29-2015 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 09:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 08:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  OK.... the solution is a consumption tax then. That's the most fair way to do it. You're taxed on what you buy. IMO this would help people to become more fiscally responsible.

I doubt that, people are already taxed on what they buy and it hasn't made any difference. At best you could do this incrementally. Sorry if someone has described this already but for poor people, how do you keep them from being severely worse off than they are now?

I don't think it's really not complicated as it seems. The consumption tax would be higher than current sales taxes are right now. The poor don't buy nearly as much stuff anyway, they'll no longer have income taxes and they'll still get their gov't assistance. The rich will still buy things the rest of us can't afford. The middle class might change some of their spending habits.

The bottom line is that the US is a consumer society, that's not going to change when you look at the big picture. What you'll have is SOME restructuring of spending habits across the middle class. I think more than likely the revenue the gov't receives would be a wash but it would benefit more individuals in the proces.

They would have to get more government assistance than they do now since the consumer prices would go up by more than the small amount they currently pay in taxes (and if the zillion threads on here about half the population not paying taxes is correct, then their overall cost would go up by even more).

Go read Hambone's post # 42 - you prebate the taxes.