Sales Taxes

[Polishprince]

The reason why the form is so long is that the government uses tax policy to influence other economic actions by the taxpayers. There are credits for all sorts of things the government wants to encourage or discourage.

Its the “Golden Rule”
He who has the Gold makes the rules

Not many deductions or exemptions in there for regular working folk

Actually, there are quite a few.

IRA deductions, charitable deductions, union dues deductions, mortgage interest deductions, medical deductions, state and local tax deductions, etc.

 

[Penelope]

I‘m thinking of Government providing services like we used to before we sold out to Supply Side Economics
Modern infrastructure, low cost healthcare, affordable higher education

Only children and losers think the government should provide things that adults have historically done for themselves.

No people out of work and those vets that have disabilities and PSTD.

 

[Penelope]

The reason why the form is so long is that the government uses tax policy to influence other economic actions by the taxpayers. There are credits for all sorts of things the government wants to encourage or discourage.

Its the “Golden Rule”
He who has the Gold makes the rules

Not many deductions or exemptions in there for regular working folk

Actually, there are quite a few.

IRA deductions, charitable deductions, union dues deductions, mortgage interest deductions, medical deductions, state and local tax deductions, etc.

A couple of those deductions are only for people making enough money.

 

[Penelope]

They still end up paying a much smaller portion of their total income

Why is that such a problem?

These people think that if one person pays 75% of his income to live that everyone should have 75% of their income taken from them

Only in tax returns, do you agree?

 

[Blues Man]

Working people spend a larger percentage of their income than the wealthy. They have to.

And the wealthy spend far more actual money than the poor, which equates to a far bigger portion of actual tax revenue under a consumption tax.

Working people spend a larger percentage of their income than the wealthy. They have to.

And the wealthy spend far more actual money than the poor, which equates to a far bigger portion of actual tax revenue under a consumption tax.

Orangecat, "business" expenditures reduce taxpayers' taxable incomes and there are many tax reduction items more available to wealthier taxpayers.
individuals' purchases rather than paid income taxes are more accurate indications of their incomes or wealth. Respectfully, Supposn

There are no extra deductions on the personal tax returns of the wealthy.

Then why is the form so fucking long?

The 1040 isn't that long

See the forms it refers you to?

still not that big of a deal.

 

[Blues Man]

They still end up paying a much smaller portion of their total income

Why is that such a problem?

These people think that if one person pays 75% of his income to live that everyone should have 75% of their income taken from them

Only in tax returns, do you agree?

Yes everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income taxes.

So do you want everyone to pay 10% or 40%?

 

[Blues Man]

The reason why the form is so long is that the government uses tax policy to influence other economic actions by the taxpayers. There are credits for all sorts of things the government wants to encourage or discourage.

Its the “Golden Rule”
He who has the Gold makes the rules

Not many deductions or exemptions in there for regular working folk

No just the ones that let 40% of people pay ZERO income taxes

 

[Penelope]

They still end up paying a much smaller portion of their total income

Why is that such a problem?

These people think that if one person pays 75% of his income to live that everyone should have 75% of their income taken from them

Only in tax returns, do you agree?

Yes everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income taxes.

So do you want everyone to pay 10% or 40%?

No one pays 40's nowdays, beside the tax breaks for the lowest are set to raise.

 

[Blues Man]

They still end up paying a much smaller portion of their total income

Why is that such a problem?

These people think that if one person pays 75% of his income to live that everyone should have 75% of their income taken from them

Only in tax returns, do you agree?

Yes everyone should pay the exact same percentage of their income taxes.

So do you want everyone to pay 10% or 40%?

No one pays 40's nowdays, beside the tax breaks for the lowest are set to raise.

So how much do you want everyone to pay?

 

[rightwinger]

The reason why the form is so long is that the government uses tax policy to influence other economic actions by the taxpayers. There are credits for all sorts of things the government wants to encourage or discourage.

Its the “Golden Rule”
He who has the Gold makes the rules

Not many deductions or exemptions in there for regular working folk

No just the ones that let 40% of people pay ZERO income taxes

Mostly people who need their income to survive

But it also includes leeches like Trump who expect taxpayers to compensate for his poor business decisions

 

[Crepitus]

Wealthy people buy a larger quantity of and more expensive goods so they would pay more sales taxes.

Less as a percentage of their income.

So what?

Do you really think that because one person spends 80% of his income that ALL people must have 80% of their income taken away?

Where would you get a silly idea like that?

 

[Crepitus]

Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.

Then stop buying and selling them.

Next.

If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.

The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?

Invest in business.

When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.

It is pure speculation
Pay a fee on each transaction

I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?


To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.

I guess that's what libs want, however.

Kind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches

1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.

Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.

I think what's actually being discussed is 0.1%.

 

[Crepitus]

Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.

Then stop buying and selling them.

Next.

If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.

The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?

Invest in business.

When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.

It is pure speculation
Pay a fee on each transaction

I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?


To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.

I guess that's what libs want, however.

Kind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches

1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.

Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.

Exactly
Think of the revenue that would be generated

It will become the cost of doing business

The revenue wouldn't be nearly as much as you think. The number of people saving for retirement in stocks would decline precipitously.

People would look for other ways to invest, like lottery tickets, greyhound racing and beanie babies.

Don't be ridiculous. They might slow the trading rates a a bit but that's all.

 

[Crepitus]

Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.

Then stop buying and selling them.

Next.

If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.

The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?

Invest in business.

When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.

It is pure speculation
Pay a fee on each transaction

I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?


To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.

I guess that's what libs want, however.

Kind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches

1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.

Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.

Exactly
Think of the revenue that would be generated

It will become the cost of doing business

I am thinking about the revenue it would generate. Do you really think its that smart to make Big Government even wealthier and more powerful than they are right now?

Yes. Republicans have starved the government to the point where they can't feed the needy.

 

[Polishprince]

Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.

Then stop buying and selling them.

Next.

If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.

The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?

Invest in business.

When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.

It is pure speculation
Pay a fee on each transaction

I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?


To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.

I guess that's what libs want, however.

Kind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches

1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.

Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.

I think what's actually being discussed is 0.1%.

That wouldn't be as bad as what others here on USMB suggested, 1% or even a full sales tax.

But it still wouldn't be good- although if we could get rid of the Death Tax in exchange, and it was 0.1%, maybe.

 

[Orangecat]

Good things for a modern society

Subsidizing a dependent class is not a good thing for any society.

 

[Supposn]

Is there a Fair Tax Plan that doesn’t end up making the working class pay more and the rich pay less?

Yeah it's called the Fair Tax.
Look it up

Blue Man, there's a limit to what's an acceptable sales tax rate. I don't believe we can entirely replace federal income taxes with a federal sales tax. At some point increases of tax revenues less justify the economic consequences of the increases; those points differ for different tax schemes and their purposes. It's my opinion those points are of comparatively lesser rates for sales taxes rather than taxes on incomes or upon almost any other matters. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Blues Man]

The reason why the form is so long is that the government uses tax policy to influence other economic actions by the taxpayers. There are credits for all sorts of things the government wants to encourage or discourage.

Its the “Golden Rule”
He who has the Gold makes the rules

Not many deductions or exemptions in there for regular working folk

No just the ones that let 40% of people pay ZERO income taxes

Mostly people who need their income to survive

But it also includes leeches like Trump who expect taxpayers to compensate for his poor business decisions

If he lost money or had the write offs that's perfectly legal.

I suppose you don't want small business owners to be able to write off losses and expenses too

 

[Blues Man]

Is there a Fair Tax Plan that doesn’t end up making the working class pay more and the rich pay less?

Yeah it's called the Fair Tax.
Look it up

Blue Man, there's a limit to what's an acceptable sales tax rate. I don't believe we can entirely replace federal income taxes with a federal sales tax. At some point increases of tax revenues less justify the economic consequences of the increases; those points differ for different tax schemes and their purposes. It's my opinion those points are of comparatively lesser rates for sales taxes rather than taxes on incomes or upon almost any other matters. Respectfully, Supposn

Look it up.

The Fair Tax plan is revenue neutral with the current tax system

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sales Taxes:
individuals' annual purchases rather than their paid income taxes, are more accurate indications of their comparative proportional incomes and wealth.
Sales taxes are only regressive in comparison to income taxes, when levied upon those who do not otherwise pay income taxes, (i.e. upon those of much less or no taxable incomes).
[Depending upon the product purchased and the drafting of the law, sales taxes can to some extent be drafted to effectively be greater or lesser regressive].

At some point increases of tax revenues less justify the economic consequences of the increases; those points differ for different tax schemes and their purposes. It's my opinion those points are of comparatively lesser rates for sales taxes rather than taxes on incomes or upon almost any other matters. I also believe it's desirable for all while in the USA, and all USA citizens to the extent we're able, should be equitably required to contribute to our tax revenues.

Respectfully, Supposn

Sales taxes are regressive because poor people spend all or most of their money and wealthy folks do not.

Next.

Wow so that's why they're poor, and rich people are rich..

I was always wondering why