No More Taxes - The Answer, or a Mistake?

[freedombecki]

At least, no more taxes on income.

Instead, we raise the sales tax to 23%. That's it. Fair taxes for everybody. No nonsense, no loopholes.

And if you make the argument that "it's not fair for the poor to pay the same tax rate as the rich," they won't; because at the end of the day, rich people will always buy more things.

FairTax.org

Oh, and by the way. I'd like to introduce myself.

My name is Andrew, I'm 21, I enjoy long walks on the beach and talking politics. Lets discuss, shall we?

Welcome to USMB, tooAlive. Hope you enjoy USMB.

The trouble with changing taxes is that politicians seem to think "Oh, there's one we missed!!!" Then they just add the sales tax on top of what you're already paying to put more people in dependency roles on the government.

 

[Joe Steel]

I thought you were joking from your last post.

Since apparently you aren't would you mind giving me an example of you trying it, and the proof you have of it working?

In the mid-'40s the top marginal tax rate was 94%. That led to the best economy America ever has seen. Check the record.

Actually, the American economy stuttered and stalled throughout the 1950's. It wasn't until JFKs tax rates kicked in that the economy thrived.

Utter nonsense. Check the record.

 

[Joe Steel]

In the mid-'40s the top marginal tax rate was 94%. That led to the best economy America ever has seen. Check the record.

Oh Goodie! Something to debate about. Lets see, where shall we begin..

...

I'm not even mentioning deductions, ect.. And the only reason the government even raised the taxes that high was because of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Not because it was deemed the "right thing to do."

The top rate was around 90% until 1963. The war was over by then.

 

[tooAlive]

Welcome to USMB, tooAlive. Hope you enjoy USMB.

The trouble with changing taxes is that politicians seem to think "Oh, there's one we missed!!!" Then they just add the sales tax on top of what you're already paying to put more people in dependency roles on the government.

Thanks, looks like a great place so far!

And that's a really good point. Something to think about.

 

[tooAlive]

The top rate was around 90% until 1963. The war was over by then.

Since you're good with statistics, tell me exactly just what percentage of the population actually ended up paying those taxes.

 

[Joe Steel]

The top rate was around 90% until 1963. The war was over by then.

Since you're good with statistics, tell me exactly just what percentage of the population actually ended up paying those taxes.

Why? What's your point?

 

[tooAlive]

The top rate was around 90% until 1963. The war was over by then.

Since you're good with statistics, tell me exactly just what percentage of the population actually ended up paying those taxes.

Why? What's your point?

That just because taxes were high at that time doesn't mean people actually ended up paying them.

And if your argument is that having 94% income taxes attributed to economic growth during that time, then that's simply not the case.

You said it's been proven to work. Ok, show an example of how taking from those who earn the most to "share it" amongst the lower earners actually leads to economic growth.

Because the one you posted simply was not one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If one tax is stealing, then all taxes are stealing. It's irrelevant how it's done.

You're right.

But we can't abandon taxes (or can we?). Like I mentioned earlier, we've reached a level of socialism where we can't really transition out of.

And since socialism itself is a form of "controlled stealing," we're gonna have to go along with it. That said, I'd prefer sales tax to income tax.

Why can't we? Because the state tells us coercion is the only way to organize society?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The only truly fair tax is a steeply progressive income tax. It should protect the poor and most of the middle class from any tax and tax the highest income at near 100%.

Looting isn't fair, or wise.

"Fair" is a matter of opinion. Opinion can be shaped.

So you can talk in terms of fairness, but nobody else can?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here's my question, if we tax anybody at or near 100%, why in the world would they work?

 

[Cowman]

Here's my question, if we tax anybody at or near 100%, why in the world would they work?

Who is proposing a 100% tax?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here's my question, if we tax anybody at or near 100%, why in the world would they work?

Who is proposing a 100% tax?

The only truly fair tax is a steeply progressive income tax. It should protect the poor and most of the middle class from any tax and tax the highest income at near 100%.

Him.

 

[eflatminor]

Utter nonsense. Check the record.

Brilliant retort. The logic, the reason...the specificity. Impressive.

 

[konradv]

At least, no more taxes on income.

Instead, we raise the sales tax to 23%. That's it. Fair taxes for everybody. No nonsense, no loopholes.

And if you make the argument that "it's not fair for the poor to pay the same tax rate as the rich," they won't; because at the end of the day, rich people will always buy more things.

FairTax.org

Oh, and by the way. I'd like to introduce myself.

My name is Andrew, I'm 21, I enjoy long walks on the beach and talking politics. Lets discuss, shall we?

It would kill things like the used car business. Who would want to pay an extra 23%? Even today with our usual sales taxes many people go the private sale route, so they can fudge the sale price. That's a luxury a business wouldn't have, unless you also don't have an IRS, but then cheating would be rampant and revenues would totally collapse.

 

[tooAlive]

At least, no more taxes on income.

Instead, we raise the sales tax to 23%. That's it. Fair taxes for everybody. No nonsense, no loopholes.

And if you make the argument that "it's not fair for the poor to pay the same tax rate as the rich," they won't; because at the end of the day, rich people will always buy more things.

FairTax.org

Oh, and by the way. I'd like to introduce myself.

My name is Andrew, I'm 21, I enjoy long walks on the beach and talking politics. Lets discuss, shall we?

It would kill things like the used car business. Who would want to pay an extra 23%? Even today with our usual sales taxes many people go the private sale route, so they can fudge the sale price. That's a luxury a business wouldn't have, unless you also don't have an IRS, but then cheating would be rampant and revenues would totally collapse.

It wouldn't be an extra 23%.

First of all, we're already paying a sales tax. It would just be higher. And secondly, all income taxes would be eliminated. So you'd have a lot more money in your pocket, and the higher sales tax would even out.

 

[Steelplate]

Really? you think that the interstate road system would have been built by private industry on their own? Free to use for everyone?

Um...The interstate system WAS built by provate contractors.

The Industrial revolution was not an American only phenomenon. Germany was more advanced than us back then. We were still newcomers....Our big advantage was Natural resources that were unmatched. Greedy men exploited those resources and treated their employees like dirt. It wasn't until industry was so desperate for labor to fill the needs of the military that they would give their left nuts to get people into the factories that our economy grew beyond our wildest expectations.....because people had money to spend...even on trivial shit like Radios, TV's and electric razors.

Doesn't matter....Nobody prospered from the industrial revolution more so than did America...Primarily because we had vastly fewer bureaucratic lampreys sucking the life blood out of the productive.

That's what you don't get. The consumer is business' biggest friend. Who are the consumers, by and large? Employees of other people. To fuck them is to cut your own throat.

What you don't get is that gubmint is the consumer's AND business' worst enemy.

Ok Oddball, You know I like you...I think it was the cool Donald Sutherland Avatar you used to have.....but....here's where you are wrong, and I guess in a sense, I was too.....so let me rephrase...

Who PAID for the interstate system? Without the investment from the Good people of the US of A, it wouldn't have been built. Who paid for Hoover Dam so that the West Coast could have them "newfangled" electric lights? The TVA? Hell, the inter-contintinental railroad? Levee systems, running water and sewage? The Internet? My God, the list goes on and on.

You knew what I meant when I said "built", but decided to play a semantics game.

Flash forward to today.....our infrastructure is falling apart....bridges and roads. Dams that haven't even been inspected in a decade, water delivery systems, sewer lines. An electrical grid that operates at 40% efficiency. That's right, for every Kilowatt generated, 60% of that kilowatt is lost till it gets to your home.....who do you think pays for that?

How many private sector businesses are lining up to fix all that shit out of the goodness of their hearts? None.

Add to that, the fact that employee wages are stuck in the 70's and the cost of materials and what contractors charge has gone way up since that same period of time....guess what? not enough revenue coming in to turn our crumbling infrastructure into a modern day, state of the art one.

Because that's one area where you guys are right....there's not enough 1%ers to make a dent in what our country needs. It all boils down to the masses, and if they can barely keep a roof over their heads, they can't be expected to pay for all of that shit. So, the movers and shakers have to decide what's more important....their country or their portfolios. They need to start paying people as if their businesses depend upon labor to make it work, instead of viewing them as serfs who deserve whatever THEY say they deserve.

I know....you're gonna say....it's not business' job to make sure that workers have a good one.....but, if they want all of that pressure off of them concerning the "evil 1%", if they want not to get taxed to death, if they want a more efficient infrastructure....that HELPS their business....it would behoove them to pocket a little less and pay a little more.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, your "if gubmint doesn't do it nobody would" straw dog don't hunt, Bubba.

Regardless, the interstate highways are a national system that was entirely built on a state and local level, by private contractors...And the "crumbling infrastructure" straw man argument has become tired, to the point of being yet another trite cliché that ranks right up there with "tax cuts for the wealthy" on the gag-me-with-a-spoon-o-meter....And, speaking of tired clichés, what long-winded lolberal rant would be complete without the old 1%-er rejoinder?

It's high time you lolberals came up with some new material.

 

[Joe Steel]

Why? What's your point?

That just because taxes were high at that time doesn't mean people actually ended up paying them.

And if your argument is that having 94% income taxes attributed to economic growth during that time, then that's simply not the case.

You said it's been proven to work. Ok, show an example of how taking from those who earn the most to "share it" amongst the lower earners actually leads to economic growth.

Because the one you posted simply was not one.

Taxes are part of a broad economic policy and no ever has been able to isolate the effect to everyone's satisfaction. About the best anyone can hope is to show acceptable economic performance and high taxes peacefully coexisting. I did. America's economy boomed from the end of WWII until the mid-60s will coexisting with high marginal tax rates.

As for the number of individuals paying the tax, no special effort is necessary. America's tax system works well-enough. We don't have an inordinate amount of tax avoidance and evasion.

 

[Joe Steel]

Looting isn't fair, or wise.

"Fair" is a matter of opinion. Opinion can be shaped.

So you can talk in terms of fairness, but nobody else can?

Absolutely not. Speak of fairness if you wish. But remember, the system we have has been shaped by public debate and democratic elections for almost a hundred years. It's far more likely to be deemed fair than anything arising from the scheming of a think tank.

 

[Joe Steel]

Utter nonsense. Check the record.

Brilliant retort. The logic, the reason...the specificity. Impressive.

Thanks. It reflects the reality of the 21st century. All the data in the world is no farther away than a few keystrokes. Ask Google and ye shall receive.