No More Taxes - The Answer, or a Mistake?

[Joe Steel]

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

Marginal tax rates already have been near that level and many were happy to work.

 

[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.

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.

People still wouldn't want to pay them, putting businesses like used cars in the toilet.

 

[McDowell's]

Utter nonsense. Check the record.

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

He forgets Candy Crowley is not in this thread..

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Cuz if it's on the internet, it must be true...

 

[auditor0007]

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's not at all a fair tax. It is the most regressive tax their is. The less you earn, the more of your income you spend on taxable goods, meaning the poorest get taxed at the highest rates. It's the nirvana of tax systems for the well to do and wealthy. Sales taxes are the reason that the lowest income earners pay the highest tax rates at the state level, in some cases as much as four times what the wealthiest pay, and you think it's a great idea to bring that system to the national level. Funny shit man.

 

[eflatminor]

It is the most regressive tax their is.

I disagree. Inflation, enforced and ensured by the Federal Reserve, is the most regressive tax of all.

That said, I don't want a national sales tax either...or an income tax for that matter.

 

[auditor0007]

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%.

I believe in and support a fairly aggressive progressive tax system, but I see no need to tax any income above 50% except in times of absolute national crisis such as a world war. More important than the statutory rate is what the effective rate turns out to be. You could make the tax rate 95% for all income over $1 million, but if there are enough ways to get around it and those making over $1 million only end up paying an effective rate of 12%, what is the point?

 

[tooAlive]

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

Marginal tax rates already have been near that level and many were happy to work.

I can't even begin to comprehend your train of thought.

If someone earning $1,000,000 is forced to pay $940,000 in taxes, HOW can you possibly tell me that is a fair policy? You're telling me they should live like the regular Joe next door making 60k a year?

That is the most absurd, and morally nauseating thing I've heard in an economic discussion.

It's comments like yours that push me to the furthest depths of the Right, where I feel inclined to abolish absolutely every single form of Government welfare for the poor. Because even then, if the entire middle and lower classes were to end up on the street, I would feel it to be a fairer consequence than to steal 94% of anyone's income.

It goes against human nature to work when you have no incentive to succeed.

There is absolutely no argument for this. None whatsoever.

I, as a human for example, enjoy to give and help others. It gives me joy to give, and see the impact that my help has done. I enjoy doing this freely.

But if you threaten to steal anywhere near the 90% I have rightfully earned, you better believe that desire to give and to help others will vanish immediately. Which will ultimate lead to my anger and resentment towards you, and everyone else in favor of taking away from me and my family to give to others whom you say "can't fend for themselves."

That's where "social classes" are created. When one half starts to realize they're stolen from, and the other half starts to want more. That's why socialism doesn't work. Because nobody really is the same; and some will ultimate be successful while others will fail. That's life, as cruel as it may sound. We should be preaching integrity, not socialism.

 

[konradv]

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

Marginal tax rates already have been near that level and many were happy to work.

I can't even begin to comprehend your train of thought.

If someone earning $1,000,000 is forced to pay $940,000 in taxes, HOW can you possibly tell me that is a fair policy? You're telling me they should live like the regular Joe next door making 60k a year?[/B]

It's the MARGINAL tax rate. No one would be paying that much on the full amount. Not that I'm saying I want to see that rate, but it would be 94% above a certain amount.

 

[tooAlive]

Marginal tax rates already have been near that level and many were happy to work.

I can't even begin to comprehend your train of thought.

If someone earning $1,000,000 is forced to pay $940,000 in taxes, HOW can you possibly tell me that is a fair policy? You're telling me they should live like the regular Joe next door making 60k a year?[/B]

It's the MARGINAL tax rate. No one would be paying that much on the full amount. Not that I'm saying I want to see that rate, but it would be 94% above a certain amount.

Mr. Joe Steel is apparently in favor of the top earners being taxed 94%.

Regardless. How can a system that penalizes success actually help an economy grow?

Taxes should be flat. No matter your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or pocket size.

 

[Oddball]

Mr. Joe Steel is apparently in favor of the top earners being taxed 94%.

He's too much of a coward to go loot his neighbors face-to-face.

 

[jillian]

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?

so middle income and poor people, who generally spend most, if not all, of what they earn in order to survive, should pay a 25% tax rate...

while rich people who save more than they spend should pay disproportionately less?

you don't know much about taxes and economics, do you?

 

[tooAlive]

so middle income and poor people, who generally spend most, if not all, of what they earn in order to survive, should pay a 25% tax rate...

while rich people who save more than they spend should pay disproportionately less?

you don't know much about taxes and economics, do you?

Yeah, that sounds about right.

And I'm wondering where you got the impression that poor people buy more things than the rich..

Mr. Joe Steel is apparently in favor of the top earners being taxed 94%.

He's too much of a coward to go loot his neighbors face-to-face.

Or maybe just waiting for theft to become legalized.

 

[Wiseacre]

One big reason why I cannot support more taxes - we ain't getting our money's worth for the taxes we're paying now. Too much waste, too much inefficiency, too much corruption, more effective ways to accomplish gov't functions; why don't we fix this stuff first and then talk about increasing revenue.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

I don't know where you get your information from.....but the Interstate system was NOT built entirely with state and local funding. There was a 90-10% split....the Federal Government paid 90% of the cost and States were required to pay 10%. In Western States that had large amounts of untaxed land, that ratio went to 95-5%.

Read here: Eisenhower Interstate Highway System -Frequently Asked Questions

The way it reads, that ratio still exists today with the upkeep of those highways.

Little friendly hint....if you're gonna make a claim directed towards me, do your homework, because I will if ya don't.

Edit: BTW.... tired? possibly.....but the truth is the truth, whether you want to accept it or not. Furthermore, Strawman arguments? Yeah, like "the government wants to enslave you" Bullshit isn't.