Are you or do you know anybody...

[Madeline]

Why can't I rely on the General Welfare the way you do on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

But seriously, you want to live in a nation that has no public education? WTF?

 

[asterism]

A consumption tax is inherently superior to an income tax because........?

Consumption requires choice.

Consumption places the burden on the lower income people. The higher income people will make out like a dog.

Not true. Higher income people spend more on non-essentials. It's part of the reason why many work so hard to get there in the first place. Just because my taxes go up doesn't mean I'm going to give up my dream of owning a plane. It just affects the timeline and the model.

Unless you plan to exclude all food and drink from the tax. Essentials also would over tax the lower incomes with consumption tax. Cars and such.

I disagree. The cost savings and increased productivity of not having companies orient their policies towards tax avoidance will more than make up for the tax surcharge in my opinion.

A flat tax with no exemptions and a minimum level to pay is the method that is the most equal.

Bad premise. Tax policy should fund agreed on government functions, not be "fair."

One does not chose to NOT eat, not drive to work, not buy cloths etc etc....

That's the part of not taxing above the poverty level.

 

[asterism]

Why can't I rely on the General Welfare the way you do on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

But seriously, you want to live in a nation that has no public education? WTF?

Actually I do, public education sucks.


But I agree with your premise. We should have public educational opportunity. I just don't think the government does it well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why can't I rely on the General Welfare the way you do on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

But seriously, you want to live in a nation that has no public education? WTF?

Dumb ass, Public Education is the States. And has always BEEN the States.

There is no enumerated General Welfare clause, There is a Commerce Clause.

Think for just a moment. the argument made at the time the Constitution was made and passed was that the document needed no bill of rights because it LIMITED the Government to those powers delegated in the document. IF the so called Welfare clause existed there would in fact be NO limits at all, since just about ANYTHING can be claimed to be in the General welfare of the Country.

Ohh and by the way, no one ever claims there IS a General Welfare clause, They almost universally stretch the Commerce clause and claim it somehow covers every thing.

 

[asterism]

A consumption tax is inherently superior to an income tax because........?

Consumption requires choice.

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Consumption requires choice.

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

EXACTLY HOW do you determine who is and is not above the welfare level with a consumption tax? And would this not lead to counterfeit forms of what ever ID system you develop?

 

[Madeline]

Why can't I rely on the General Welfare the way you do on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

But seriously, you want to live in a nation that has no public education? WTF?

Dumb ass, Public Education is the States. And has always BEEN the States.

There is no enumerated General Welfare clause, There is a Commerce Clause.

Think for just a moment. the argument made at the time the Constitution was made and passed was that the document needed no bill of rights because it LIMITED the Government to those powers delegated in the document. IF the so called Welfare clause existed there would in fact be NO limits at all, since just about ANYTHING can be claimed to be in the General welfare of the Country.

Ohh and by the way, no one ever claims there IS a General Welfare clause, They almost universally stretch the Commerce clause and claim it somehow covers every thing.

RetiredGySgt, is there any special reason you're being so uncivil to me tonight?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why can't I rely on the General Welfare the way you do on the Interstate Commerce Clause?

But seriously, you want to live in a nation that has no public education? WTF?

Dumb ass, Public Education is the States. And has always BEEN the States.

There is no enumerated General Welfare clause, There is a Commerce Clause.

Think for just a moment. the argument made at the time the Constitution was made and passed was that the document needed no bill of rights because it LIMITED the Government to those powers delegated in the document. IF the so called Welfare clause existed there would in fact be NO limits at all, since just about ANYTHING can be claimed to be in the General welfare of the Country.

Ohh and by the way, no one ever claims there IS a General Welfare clause, They almost universally stretch the Commerce clause and claim it somehow covers every thing.

RetiredGySgt, is there any special reason you're being so uncivil to me tonight?

Perhaps the fact you do not even know BASIC facts? Take education, who do you think has controlled education up until about 10 years ago? Do you honestly not know that local education is paid for through property taxes and special bond drives? AT the Local level? Hell even the States used to leave education at the County level until recently. Now they help with things like Lottery money.

 

[Madeline]

Consumption requires choice.

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

I assume you are thinking of taxing all consumption. Food? Medicine? I'd call that regressive. But no matter. My big complaint is all the work it would take to retool our tax system....hell, we'd even need a new constitutional amendment.

Why is this superior to a modified flat tax on income?

 

[DiveCon]

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

EXACTLY HOW do you determine who is and is not above the welfare level with a consumption tax? And would this not lead to counterfeit forms of what ever ID system you develop?

simple, basic items of life are not taxed
like food, medicine, basic services

also think of the savings, no need for the IRS, no need for massive regulations on business
no wasted paper filing annual returns

 

[asterism]

Okie dokie...and that is superior because? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, the base is hard to measure and the transactions do not lend themselves to third party reporting. Not to mention, nobody in the public is familiar with them, and the apparatus of the IRS ain't set up for a consumption tax. I just don't see the big pay off.

Why not just adapt the income tax to a (modified) flat tax?

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

EXACTLY HOW do you determine who is and is not above the welfare level with a consumption tax? And would this not lead to counterfeit forms of what ever ID system you develop?

Prebates to everyone. Those that need it benefit. Those that don't either spend, save, or invest it. Level playing field of equal opportunity with a baseline.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

EXACTLY HOW do you determine who is and is not above the welfare level with a consumption tax? And would this not lead to counterfeit forms of what ever ID system you develop?

simple, basic items of life are not taxed
like food, medicine, basic services

also think of the savings, no need for the IRS, no need for massive regulations on business
no wasted paper filing annual returns

That is NOT what he proposes.

 

[Madeline]

Dumb ass, Public Education is the States. And has always BEEN the States.

There is no enumerated General Welfare clause, There is a Commerce Clause.

Think for just a moment. the argument made at the time the Constitution was made and passed was that the document needed no bill of rights because it LIMITED the Government to those powers delegated in the document. IF the so called Welfare clause existed there would in fact be NO limits at all, since just about ANYTHING can be claimed to be in the General welfare of the Country.

Ohh and by the way, no one ever claims there IS a General Welfare clause, They almost universally stretch the Commerce clause and claim it somehow covers every thing.

RetiredGySgt, is there any special reason you're being so uncivil to me tonight?

Perhaps the fact you do not even know BASIC facts? Take education, who do you think has controlled education up until about 10 years ago? Do you honestly not know that local education is paid for through property taxes and special bond drives? AT the Local level? Hell even the States used to leave education at the County level until recently. Now they help with things like Lottery money.

What makes you think I don't know about school funding, RetiredGySgt? I don't know about things where you are, but DOE funds are esstential to Ohio schools. DOE creates waste. I would like to see it dismantled....but yes, I still think the funding needs to come through.

On a personal note, you've been nasty to me, RetiredGySgt. I don't like it. I expect a modicum of civility in debate with a mature man. Please stop addressing me as "dumbass".

 

[DiveCon]

EXACTLY HOW do you determine who is and is not above the welfare level with a consumption tax? And would this not lead to counterfeit forms of what ever ID system you develop?

simple, basic items of life are not taxed
like food, medicine, basic services

also think of the savings, no need for the IRS, no need for massive regulations on business
no wasted paper filing annual returns

That is NOT what he proposes.

thats what it looked like to me

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt, is there any special reason you're being so uncivil to me tonight?

Perhaps the fact you do not even know BASIC facts? Take education, who do you think has controlled education up until about 10 years ago? Do you honestly not know that local education is paid for through property taxes and special bond drives? AT the Local level? Hell even the States used to leave education at the County level until recently. Now they help with things like Lottery money.

What makes you think I don't know about school funding, RetiredGySgt? I don't know about things where you are, but DOE funds are esstential to Ohio schools. DOE creates waste. I would like to see it dismantled....but yes, I still think the funding needs to come through.

On a personal note, you've been nasty to me, RetiredGySgt. I don't like it. I expect a modicum of civility in debate with a mature man. Please stop addressing me as "dumbass".

Stop being one.

 

[Madeline]

Consumption taxes above poverty level do not tend to be regressive. They are progressive because the more one consumes the more one is taxed. They do overly tax those who consume beyond their means, but it's not viable to hamper growth because people make stupid decisions with their money.

EXACTLY HOW do you determine who is and is not above the welfare level with a consumption tax? And would this not lead to counterfeit forms of what ever ID system you develop?

Prebates to everyone. Those that need it benefit. Those that don't either spend, save, or invest it. Level playing field of equal opportunity with a baseline.

Prebates?

 

[Madeline]

asterism, are you thinking of a VAT, like Canada has? Or a true consumption tax?

And BTW, why would a business no longer be a taxpayer?

 

[asterism]

I assume you are thinking of taxing all consumption. Food? Medicine? I'd call that regressive.

How so? Taxation above the poverty level is based on wants, not needs. Richer folks want and buy more expensive things (including food and medicine). They pay more in taxes for it under a consumption tax.

But no matter. My big complaint is all the work it would take to retool our tax system....hell, we'd even need a new constitutional amendment.

Big benefits require big work.

Why is this superior to a modified flat tax on income?

Taxing income disincentivizes productivity, wealth creation, and it's unsustainable. All these measures employed to correct a basic fundamental problem, that some people get to have more stuff than others. Tax those who choose to go that route.

Also, an income tax requires a huge inefficient bureaucracy that is open to manipulation. That costs real money both in providing for that bureaucracy and in lost productivity with producers gearing strategy towards tax avoidance. That goes away with a consumption tax. It's simple and transparent.

 

[asterism]

asterism, are you thinking of a VAT, like Canada has? Or a true consumption tax?

And BTW, why would a business no longer be a taxpayer?

I'm thinking of a national sales tax to replace all income taxes (including social security) and all corporate taxes. Corporations serve as collection instruments for taxes on their customers not entities that actually pay.

 

[Madeline]

I get that corporations would collect the sales tax, but if they don't pay tax themselves, a whole huge stream of commerce gets cut out of the tax base. (Corporations are also not the only type of businesses, but I presume you meant all retailers?) Now you're are either collecting too little revenue or shifting that burden onto new taxpayers...both are undesirable IMO.

A modified flat tax would eliminate the IRS as we know it too.

I'm not sure why you think "a tax on income is unsustainable".

Is any First World nation actually using a consumption tax? I'd have said no. Why would we want to invent the wheel?