Taxing consumption versus taxing earnings?

[konradv]

I'd fight it because the rich wouldn't be paying their fair share. If lower taxes really led to more jobs, sure. There's just no evidence that that's the case.

Exactly how much did you pay in taxes last year?

No clue what to say so you ape warrior's "did you serve" question? If you've got nothing worthwhile to say, don't post. That's just pathetic.

 

[konradv]

No, not sure where you got that.

There would be no "income tax". Whenever money was spent to purchase goods or services (obviously, employee labor not being considered a "service" in that statement) the tax would be collected and paid monthly to the government.

If Dell purchased chips from Intel, they would pay the tax to Intel and Intel would pay the government. If Intel paid its employees on payday they would not take out any payroll taxes nor would they pay unemployment tax, FICA or Medicare those are covered and replaced in the bill. When those employees go to Winn Dixie to buy groceries they pay a tax on the food they purchase.

Every month the government sends a check (actually I am sure this would be done electronically) to each household to cover what a household of that size at the poverty level would be expected to pay in taxes. This is done to reduce the burden on those living below the poverty level. As mentioned above a family of four would get approximately $442 per month. If they ate over at friend's houses every night and didn't buy any groceries or spend any money they could actually save that $442 or whatever portion they did not spend.

One plus that is mentioned is that would mean that any money spent in the country would be taxed whether or not it was spent by a criminal i.e. drug dealer, an illegal alien, a visitor to the country or what have you.

Immie

If there's a tax on my labor, then you've just changed who pays the income tax. I got that from your post where you said there would be a tax on services. By your plan it would be a flat tax, but a tax on my income nonetheless.

Well, to clear that up... labor means the work an employee does for you. What you are talking about is services. I would pay my CPA a tax on the invoice he gave me, not his "labor". I would pay the guy that mows my lawn for the bill he gave me, not his "labor". I would not be taxed, nor would my employee be taxed for the labor they perform for me.

Immie

That's mere paperwork. I could easily submit a bill to my employer each week. What makes one form of labor taxable and another not? Are you saying a self-employed person who bills must add to that bill, but a corporation that sends out paychecks gets off scot-free? Doesn't seem equitable and would make the small business uncompetitive. Are you sure you understand the free market? The plan seems full of holes, not to mention all the under-billing and under-the-table payments that would occur to avoid that sizable a tax.

 

[Two Thumbs]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

In a situation where it's one or the other.

consumption would be fairest

it would be the least difficult to manage as the IRS would no longer be needed and all loop holes would be closed.

anyone that wanted to raise or lower taxes would affect every person in America, not just Americans.

The black market would be taxed. last I heard it's a trillion dollar industry

the rich would pay more as they would buy premium items while the lower on the scale either save for big ticket or buy cheaper.

whatever you are getting paid is what you take home. People that work tons of overtime now see little increase come payday as it's often eaten in taxes.


excellent question mani. The doctors finally got the meds right?

 

[konradv]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

In a situation where it's one or the other.

consumption would be fairest

it would be the least difficult to manage as the IRS would no longer be needed and all loop holes would be closed.

anyone that wanted to raise or lower taxes would affect every person in America, not just Americans.

The black market would be taxed. last I heard it's a trillion dollar industry

the rich would pay more as they would buy premium items while the lower on the scale either save for big ticket or buy cheaper.

whatever you are getting paid is what you take home. People that work tons of overtime now see little increase come payday as it's often eaten in taxes.


excellent question mani. The doctors finally got the meds right?

How do you tax the black market? By defintion it's hidden from scrutiny. You think a black marketer would pay? Also, normally honest people would finagle to avoid that large a tax. Without some agency like the IRS, you're never going to get anything like 23%.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Let's imagine we could wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. We all agree that some level of government is necessary. The appropriate scope of government, at all levels, is a good topic for another thread, but for this exercise let's simply focus on how we're to fund this government. I submit that the fairest tax structure is one that draws equitably, from across the entire population, an amount sufficient to fund all government responsibilities. But what is equitable and what is the best way to achieve it?

It's in the Constitution, and has nothing to do with taxing one's earnings or income. In order for THAT plan to work again, we've got to get the government back in their box.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

Taxes are never fair, they just are. That said, sales/consumption taxes are fracking obscene.

 

[g5000]

Remember, I am for the Fair Tax.

No, I think new yachts will continue to be made and sold, however, to compete with that little aspect of the law that I mentioned, I believe that there will be an adjustment in the costs of those new yachts.

Immie

Why would there be? With all other taxes eliminated, the wealthy would have more disposable income.

Do you really not understand the idea of competition?

Do you really think that rich men are not frugal with there money?

If they can purchase a used vessel for $3.46 million that has more amenities than a brand new yacht costing $3 million plus sales tax for a total of $3.46 million they're simply going to buy the used vessel. New yacht dealers will have to adjust their sales price to whatever the market will bear.

If I can buy a used vessel for $3.25 million dollars that is the same vessel as the new one maybe a year older that is going for $3 million plus tax, I'm going to buy the used vessel and not pay the tax and save money. It's really not all that difficult to understand.

Immie

You are forgetting the guy who owns the used yacht paid sales tax on it when HE bought it. So he is going to want to recoup that sales tax when he sells it and will add it onto the used price. The gap between used and new will be exactly the same as it is now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are time when I think a national sales tax could be a good change,like everything in this world it comes with a cost not yet seen,could it be less fair to the poor?? would it stifle spending?? But on the flip side,you have more control on the tax you pay,most would save more,and we would be hitting the criminals for some action they presently don't pay. But then what about the budding black market??

I lean more to a flat tax,and some serious spending restraint.

Or just start with some serious spending restrain get our house in order then experiment.

You think a national sales tax could be good?

Think about adding a tax to every sale made in this country. Start with the well, add a tax to the crude oil, another tax when it shipper delivers it to the refinery, another when the refiner sells the refined gas, another when the next shipper delivers it to the gas station, and then another when you pump the gas into your car. Do you have any idea how much the price of that gallon of gas just went up?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fair flat tax. No exemptions, no excuses, no exceptions.

On earnings, with no distinction between wages and capital gains?

If so, I could be on board with that, if it were to replace all consumption taxes.

I would go for that if you eliminated the corporate tax.

 

[g5000]

There are time when I think a national sales tax could be a good change,like everything in this world it comes with a cost not yet seen,could it be less fair to the poor?? would it stifle spending?? But on the flip side,you have more control on the tax you pay,most would save more,and we would be hitting the criminals for some action they presently don't pay. But then what about the budding black market??

I lean more to a flat tax,and some serious spending restraint.

Or just start with some serious spending restrain get our house in order then experiment.

You think a national sales tax could be good?

Think about adding a tax to every sale made in this country. Start with the well, add a tax to the crude oil, another tax when it shipper delivers it to the refinery, another when the refiner sells the refined gas, another when the next shipper delivers it to the gas station, and then another when you pump the gas into your car. Do you have any idea how much the price of that gallon of gas just went up?

In the Fair Tax system, business to business sales are not taxed. So the only tax paid is at the pump.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are time when I think a national sales tax could be a good change,like everything in this world it comes with a cost not yet seen,could it be less fair to the poor?? would it stifle spending?? But on the flip side,you have more control on the tax you pay,most would save more,and we would be hitting the criminals for some action they presently don't pay. But then what about the budding black market??

I lean more to a flat tax,and some serious spending restraint.

Or just start with some serious spending restrain get our house in order then experiment.

You think a national sales tax could be good?

Think about adding a tax to every sale made in this country. Start with the well, add a tax to the crude oil, another tax when it shipper delivers it to the refinery, another when the refiner sells the refined gas, another when the next shipper delivers it to the gas station, and then another when you pump the gas into your car. Do you have any idea how much the price of that gallon of gas just went up?

In the Fair Tax system, business to business sales are not taxed. So the only tax paid is at the pump.

Apparently my earlier post, taxes are never fair.

Let me emphasize that, taxes are never fair.

 

[auditor0007]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

Sales taxes are regressive, but having them is a good way to make certain that everyone pays some taxes. At the state level, the lowest income earners actually pay a much bigger percentage of their income in taxes. The highest income earners pay the least. This to me is not good at all, but then at the Federal level the lowest income earners pay the least, so it really does balance out overall. What drives me nuts is those who cry about low income earners not paying any federal income taxes, even though they pay federal taxes through payroll taxes and they paying higher state tax rates than those who earn more than them. But we all know it's those low income earners sucking off the tit of government who are bankrupting this country and forcing hard working millionaires to leave our country for greener pastures.

 

[Two Thumbs]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

In a situation where it's one or the other.

consumption would be fairest

it would be the least difficult to manage as the IRS would no longer be needed and all loop holes would be closed.

anyone that wanted to raise or lower taxes would affect every person in America, not just Americans.

The black market would be taxed. last I heard it's a trillion dollar industry

the rich would pay more as they would buy premium items while the lower on the scale either save for big ticket or buy cheaper.

whatever you are getting paid is what you take home. People that work tons of overtime now see little increase come payday as it's often eaten in taxes.


excellent question mani. The doctors finally got the meds right?

How do you tax the black market? By defintion it's hidden from scrutiny. You think a black marketer would pay? Also, normally honest people would finagle to avoid that large a tax. Without some agency like the IRS, you're never going to get anything like 23%.

How do you tax the black market? simple. with the sales tax. right now the only way to get money out of the black market is that way.

Also, normally honest people would finagle to avoid that large a tax. wtf are you talking about? The only way to avoid a consumption [sales tax] is the barter system. good luck avoid taxes with that.

Without some agency like the IRS, you're never going to get anything like 23%. wtf are you talking about? you can set the tax at any level. If it's more than needed, drop it, if more is needed, raise it. People can't horde money. We have to buy many items. but it will be easier to save, since all your money won't be taxed.

 

[konradv]

In a situation where it's one or the other.

consumption would be fairest

it would be the least difficult to manage as the IRS would no longer be needed and all loop holes would be closed.

anyone that wanted to raise or lower taxes would affect every person in America, not just Americans.

The black market would be taxed. last I heard it's a trillion dollar industry

the rich would pay more as they would buy premium items while the lower on the scale either save for big ticket or buy cheaper.

whatever you are getting paid is what you take home. People that work tons of overtime now see little increase come payday as it's often eaten in taxes.


excellent question mani. The doctors finally got the meds right?

How do you tax the black market? By defintion it's hidden from scrutiny. You think a black marketer would pay? Also, normally honest people would finagle to avoid that large a tax. Without some agency like the IRS, you're never going to get anything like 23%.

How do you tax the black market? simple. with the sales tax. right now the only way to get money out of the black market is that way.

Also, normally honest people would finagle to avoid that large a tax. wtf are you talking about? The only way to avoid a consumption [sales tax] is the barter system. good luck avoid taxes with that.

Without some agency like the IRS, you're never going to get anything like 23%. wtf are you talking about? you can set the tax at any level. If it's more than needed, drop it, if more is needed, raise it. People can't horde money. We have to buy many items. but it will be easier to save, since all your money won't be taxed.

WTF, black marketers aren't going to pay the tax. How would you do it? 23% on top of the price of the item is a big chunk. Avoiding that tax would be a cottage industry. It assumes that people will willingly pay the tax because it's "fair". Nothing would be further from the truth. You'd get less than expected. Enforcement costs would be astronomical and when you try to raise the tax, today's revolt would look like a love fest.

 

[editec]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

Do you believe the right wing political wisdom that proposes:

Those activities and behaviors that are TAXED, will be eschewed by rational people whenever possible.​

If you do believe that sentiment, thenTAXING CONSUMPTION will lead to a slow down economic activity as people put off buying to avoid taxation.​

 

[chikenwing]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

Do you believe the right wing political wisdom that proposes:

Those activities and behaviors that are TAXED, will be eschewed by rational people whenever possible.​

If you do believe that sentiment, thenTAXING CONSUMPTION will lead to a slow down economic activity as people put off buying to avoid taxation.​

Would see some of both,there are no perfect solutions.

 

[Oddball]

Got a problem with that, let's go to public financing of elections. I'll bet the amount the average voter benefits from "favors" is far out weighed by those bought by corporations and unions.

Yeah, right...As though politicians could handle election funding any better than they handle anything else.

Get real.

What would be so difficult about an even split? Who could **** that up? If people are that stupid, there's really no hope for your plan either.

An "even split" presumes that only the remocrats and depublicans would be worthy of having their campaigns funded....Such a move would in fact be the end of any third party or independent candidacies.

If asking who could **** that up doesn't expose your utter naïveté, nothing does.

 

[konradv]

Yeah, right...As though politicians could handle election funding any better than they handle anything else.

Get real.

What would be so difficult about an even split? Who could **** that up? If people are that stupid, there's really no hope for your plan either.

An "even split" presumes that only the remocrats and depublicans would be worthy of having their campaigns funded....Such a move would in fact be the end of any third party or independent candidacies.

If asking who could **** that up doesn't expose your utter naïveté, nothing does.

Who said anything about just Rs and Ds? Anyone showing significant support, could get funds. It would require sub-primaries to determine those who'd get funds for the party primaries and any Is or 3rd parties that are getting support. What's significant support? I'd say 10%, but that's something that could be worked out. IMO, it's not only an integrity question, but also a money saving measure, since our representitives wouldn't have as many expensive promises to keep.

You know what they say about assuming!

 

[g5000]

WTF, black marketers aren't going to pay the tax. How would you do it? 23% on top of the price of the item is a big chunk. Avoiding that tax would be a cottage industry. It assumes that people will willingly pay the tax because it's "fair". Nothing would be further from the truth. You'd get less than expected. Enforcement costs would be astronomical and when you try to raise the tax, today's revolt would look like a love fest.

What kind of items do you expect to be buying in this black market? Groceries? Big screen TVs? You think Best Buy is going to go along with avoiding sales tax, for you?

 

[g5000]

At present, both consumption and earnings are subject to taxation (in most cases). And as both are structured presently, consumption taxes are regressive and earnings taxes are progressive.

Which method of taxation do you think is better/fairer and why?

Do you believe the right wing political wisdom that proposes:

Those activities and behaviors that are TAXED, will be eschewed by rational people whenever possible.​

If you do believe that sentiment, thenTAXING CONSUMPTION will lead to a slow down economic activity as people put off buying to avoid taxation.​

They will have more disposable income. No taxes will be withheld from their paychecks. Social Security tax, Medicare tax, income tax; all gone!

They will see a huge jump in their take home pay. More than 23 percent. And life will be that much less hassle.

And they get a rebate every month. The less income you make, the bigger percent of your income that rebate will be.