Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

PeteEU said:

Flat tax benefits only the rich... it is also promoted by the rich and the uneducated.

Consumption tax only punishes the poor and benefits only the rich.

Only thing that is fair for society (not the individual) is a progressive tax systems without too many deductions.

Click to expand...

What? The system in the US now benefits the rich who pays much less a percentage of their income/winnings in tax than does the middle class and the lower class.

There should be a flat tax and flat consumption tax, then nobody could complain because everyone pay the same tax per €/usd. With a social system who benefits the poor that is not detrimental to the poor at all.

Futhermore the VAT system should be so to discourage unhealthy/bad things and be non existent or very low on base items. Food/vegetables/fruit/rice/pasta and such should have no VAT, while cigarettes/alcohol should have very high VAT. This would further reward the poor who spend more of their money as a percent of their earnings on food than the rich.

SgtRock said:

I find it intresting that several of those who voted for no change to the current system of income tax are from the party of change as opposed to the party of the status quo. It seems that conservatives are more intrested in seeing a changed to the current system. Does that mean that in this instance conservatives are about change?

Click to expand...

Modern American conservatives do not and have never fit the dictionary definition or the European definition of conservative. Our modern conservatives are absolutely about change to fix what's wrong while retaining what is right. They are opposed to fixing stuff that isn't broken or changing what works or messing with what has proved to be a good thing throughout the history of this country.

My definition of modern American conservative (adapted from Wiki's definition of classical liberals):

Modern American Conservatism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

The "normative core" of modern American conservatism is appreciation for virtues and values promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness along with the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society. It does not oppose a social contract by which the state provides some basic public services with what constitutes public services being seen as very limited.

Modern American conservatism promotes strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but otherwise wants federal government to be limited to its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and it objects to most socialist concepts and a federal welfare state.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Modern American conservatives do not and have never fit the dictionary definition or the European definition of conservative. Our modern conservatives are absolutely about change to fix what's wrong while retaining what is right. They are opposed to fixing stuff that isn't broken or changing what works or messing with what has proved to be a good thing throughout the history of this country.

My definition of modern American conservative (adapted from Wiki's definition of classical liberals):

Click to expand...

that wiki said:

Modern American Conservatism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint

Click to expand...

:2funny:

The American conservatives are the straight opposite of that described above man. Seriously. Common, how can you even embarress yourself by putting labels such as "civil liberties", "individual freedom" and "limited government" on conservatives..


YIKES man. :screwy

samsmart said:

Actually, we already provide affordable transportation in the form of public roads and public transportation, and we provide affordable food in the form of food stamps and subsidies. I also advocate the government providing affordable housing by giving housing companies an incentive to construct smaller homes affordable to lower-income wage earners.

Click to expand...

Many Americans do not have access to vehicles to use those public roads nor access to public transportation. But they have to get to work or the grocery store just like everybody else. So should the government be providing them transportation?

In the name of urban renewal, the government razed hundreds of old neighborhoods that might have been crude or inadequate, but that contained vital and thriving neighborhoods where neighbors knew and cared about and took care of each other and kept up their property as best as they could. Those neighborhoods were replaced with the projects that rapidly became deteriorating, rat infested, crime ridden slums.

In the name of civil rights, the government dismantled most black institutions that had sustained and encouraged the black community which, though largely poor, was the fastest rising group economically in America at the time. The result was a reversal of much the progress of black people and creation of crime ridden ghettos and escalation of class warfare while government learned to exploit black people for their own purposes. That is a racism far more insidious than blatant racial prejudice.

In the name of eradicating poverty, trillions of dollars have been poured into the effort with the result that the poor are still with us while whole populations have been rendered unemployable, uneducated, and consigned to intractable poverty or a life of crime. This might be the most cruel and unconscionable hoax the American government has ever committed.

It would seem that bright people would begin to catch on to the fallacy that the nanny state only perpetuates itself and in the long term is far more damaging that are policies that encourage the people to accomplish for themselves.

And yet they allowed for racial slavery, which shows how hypocritical the Founding Fathers, or at least the myth of them, can be.

Click to expand...

Different subject for a different thread, but applying 21st century morality to an 18th century society is not productive, helpful, or pertinent. We do many many things differently now than what was 'normal' two hundred years ago. Much we do better than they did. And some things we do much worse.

Maximus Zeebra said:

:2funny:

The American conservatives are the straight opposite of that described above man. Seriously. Common, how can you even embarress yourself by putting labels such as "civil liberties", "individual freedom" and "limited government" on conservatives..


YIKES man. :screwy

Click to expand...

You only show your ignorance by expressing your prejudice.

Ethereal said:

God damn. That is some good stuff.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Isn't it a pity that those who most need to know that stuff are the ones who won't read it?

Catawba said:

That was a guess I made based on our history of a majority of Republican presidents. It makes no difference to the fact that Republicans have also not ended Social Security or Medicare when they were in control.

Which Republican do you think will make the stand to do away with Social Security and Medicare. I must be out of the loop. have heard none of the potential candidates take this position.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to be hearing. Maybe if I type more slowly?

They didn't do away with social security or medicare when they were in control because a) they were wimps and didn't want to take the political heat and b) they did not want to cause the unbelievable suffering that would have caused. You must have skipped the clause where I said reversal of those programs would have to be done slowly and carefully and over decades just as it has taken decades for them to spiral out of control.

I hope with all my heart that we elect a Congress with the backbone to begin the process soon. But it has to be well communicated and provide assurances for those whose only means of support are those government checks. People have to be educated as to why the process is necessary and it has to be done without scaring them to death. Right now there is so much vitriol and hatred and bitter partisanship that each side grossly distorts the efforts of the other to make sure that the other side doesn't get any credit for anything. That is a really sad state of affairs.

The Contract with America Republicans did do some impressive work in beginning to put those programs into reverse so that they could be phased out gradually without causing unnecessary pain. Clinton vetoed two or three welfare reform bills before he realized the public wanted it and then he finally signed one. That was a good start. He vetoed any efforts at social security reform or privatization, however, and the GOP didn't have sufficient numbers to override the veto and lacked the will to keep pushing that.

By the time President Bush was in office, the GOP had reverted from that visionary reform minded mentality and had become Democrat light. The results were pretty bad.

I am for a national sales tax/consumption tax on all goods and services except for food. To cover our budget, this seems to mean a 22% tax. Since the income tax will go away, this will balance out for most people. But the rich will pay less (as more of their income goes untaxed to investment) while the poor will pay more (currently pay no income tax, will start to pay 22% sales tax for consumed goods).

I have read in the thread that people are against this type of tax because it is a) regressive and b) punishes the poor. Why is this? Could someone explain? It seems more balanced to me paying for consumption. Why is that bad?

I have also read that people think a consumption tax is c) too large and d) not enough income generated and e) hurts businesses. I don't see it, especially where it is said to hurt businesses.

I have read in the thread that people are against this type of tax because it is a) regressive and b) punishes the poor. Why is this? Could someone explain? It seems more balanced to me paying for consumption. Why is that bad?

Click to expand...

Poor people today do not pay 22 percent of their income in taxes today, but spend closer to 100% on goods effected by a consumption tax. Thus they would pay significantly more in taxes. The wealthy by comparison, pay more than 22% in income taxes today, and spend much much less of their income on goods that would be covered by the consumption tax. Therefor it wold shift the tax burden more onto the poor and less onto the wealthy compared to today's tax system.

I have also read that people think a consumption tax is c) too large and d) not enough income generated and e) hurts businesses. I don't see it, especially where it is said to hurt businesses.

Click to expand...

Consumption taxes can hurt business, although its a complex issue with no easy answer. A big problem occur when dealing with foreign purchases of goods. Buying outside the country would be popular is you could avoid the tax. For example, going to Canada to buy a 20,000 dollar car and driving it back saves you more than 4000 bucks. American car dealers could end up in distress.

rathi said:

Poor people today do not pay 22 percent of their income in taxes today, but spend closer to 100% on goods effected by a consumption tax. Thus they would pay significantly more in taxes. The wealthy by comparison, pay more than 22% in income taxes today, and spend much much less of their income on goods that would be covered by the consumption tax. Therefor it wold shift the tax burden more onto the poor and less onto the wealthy compared to today's tax system.

Click to expand...

A very nice explanation. But why is that considered regressive? You want investments to be untaxed to create businesses and jobs. Poor people use more services from the government and ought to pay a more equitable share.

rathi said:

Consumption taxes can hurt business, although its a complex issue with no easy answer. A big problem occur when dealing with foreign purchases of goods. Buying outside the country would be popular is you could avoid the tax. For example, going to Canada to buy a 20,000 dollar car and driving it back saves you more than 4000 bucks. American car dealers could end up in distress.

Click to expand...

Well, aside from the fact that American car dealers are already in distress, I can see the problem you point out. I used to live in Northern Mass. and I would drive to NH to buy electronics as they had no sales tax. The tax system would just need to compensate for those lost sales. I don't see how that punishes business. Those American car dealers can sell cars in Canada.

Catawba said:

Your figures only show income and not other assets of wealth that are sheltered.

Click to expand...

And we're not talking about taxing wealth, nor does the Constitution allow for it, so I don't really care who is wealthier. We're talking about income. If you have anything that would contradict what I've said on that so far, feel free to point it out.

"The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

Click to expand...

And the top 5% also pay 60.63% of federal income tax, so once again, they're paying an amount disproportionate to their share. Did you even read my post?

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth."
Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA

This disparity has only grown since due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Click to expand...

And again, the top 20% pays more than 80% of all federal income taxes. Also, why don't you go back and reread what you just wrote. How exactly has the disparity grown under Bush if it went from 83% in 1998 to just over 80% in 2003?

Harry Guerrilla said:

In this thread I hear the violins bellowing for poor people quite frequently.

How much of a yearly income do you all think is "poor?"

Click to expand...

Depends on the area. In a rural-ish place like where I grew up, I'd say something like $15,000 for a single person. In someplace like NYC, I'd probably say $25,000.

Maximus Zeebra said:

What? The system in the US now benefits the rich who pays much less a percentage of their income/winnings in tax than does the middle class and the lower class.

Click to expand...

As pointed out above, the rich actually pay a much higher percentage of their income in federal income taxes than do the middle or lower classes.

AlbqOwl said:

They didn't do away with social security or medicare when they were in control because a) they were wimps and didn't want to take the political heat

Click to expand...

And which politicians are making claims today that their plans are to do away with SS and Medicare?

and b) they did not want to cause the unbelievable suffering that would have caused.

Click to expand...

Exactly, that is why no one except the fringe far right is calling for their removal.

reefedjib said:

A very nice explanation. But why is that considered regressive? You want investments to be untaxed to create businesses and jobs. Poor people use more services from the government and ought to pay a more equitable share.

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular thought, poor people do pay taxes through out the year.

When people say its regressive that do so without knowing the reality of the situation, at least in my opinion.

Chocolate Chip, please.

Harry Guerrilla said:

In this thread I hear the violins bellowing for poor people quite frequently.

How much of a yearly income do you all think is "poor?"

Click to expand...

Don't expect an answer, I've asked this same question several times over the years and never get a straight answer.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

Don't expect an answer, I've asked this same question several times over the years and never get a straight answer.

Click to expand...

Poor to some people is being unable to buy your kid a PS3 for Christmas.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

Don't expect an answer, I've asked this same question several times over the years and never get a straight answer.

Click to expand...

I really don't expect much but to some it up, poverty is relative.

There is a very small defined line of what could really be considered poor but even then its someone choosing to be poor.

Ethereal said:

Poor to some people is being unable to buy your kid a PS3 for Christmas.

Click to expand...

The poor answer I normally get is one that deals with living WAY beyond their means and have accumulated incredibly high income to debt ratio.... so yes, the PS3 is how some define poor.. as they are driving away in their Lexus or Lincoln Navigator that they were upside down in before leaving the car lot.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

The poor answer I normally get is one that deals with living WAY beyond their means and have accumulated incredibly high income to debt ratio.... so yes, the PS3 is how some define poor.. as they are driving away in their Lexus or Lincoln Navigator that they were upside down in before leaving the car lot.

Click to expand...

I've been upside down in a Lexus before. Oh, you meant on a loan. :doh

Nevermind.

TheGirlNextDoor said:

The poor answer I normally get is one that deals with living WAY beyond their means and have accumulated incredibly high income to debt ratio.... so yes, the PS3 is how some define poor.. as they are driving away in their Lexus or Lincoln Navigator that they were upside down in before leaving the car lot.

Click to expand...

In my microeconomics class we were discussing wants vs. needs and the teacher asked me to give some examples of both.

I said some needs were food, water, shelter, and clothing. I started listing wants with TV and this elicited a collective gasp from the class. The guy in front of me was particularly incensed.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Contrary to popular thought, poor people do pay taxes through out the year.

When people say its regressive that do so without knowing the reality of the situation, at least in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I see, regressive simply means the opposite of progressive, whereby the rich pay a greater share. Any change to the status quo is regressive to those people. We need to completely rethink our tax policy. Coupled with rethinking our budgetary expenses, we could drop the deficit and start paying off the debt.

reefedjib said:

I see, regressive simply means the opposite of progressive, whereby the rich pay a greater share. Any change to the status quo is regressive to those people. We need to completely rethink our tax policy. Coupled with rethinking our budgetary expenses, we could drop the deficit and start paying off the debt.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, in my experience, "poor" people have single rate taxes deducted out of their paychecks now because they don't know what to claim and to get it all back at the end of year.

They don't understand that doing it that ways causing them to have even less money after inflation.

RightinNYC said:

And we're not talking about taxing wealth

Click to expand...

You may not want to talk about wealth, but there it is just the same.

And the top 5% also pay 60.63% of federal income tax

Click to expand...

Which is comparable to the percentage of wealth they own as I've shown in my previous post ~

"The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

"In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively."

How exactly has the disparity grown under Bush if it went from 83% in 1998 to just over 80% in 2003?

Click to expand...

"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

"The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-income.4.5075504.html

Re: Changes in the tax code under Bush versus those under previous presidents.

In 1992, the richest 1% earned 14.25% of all national income, while the bottom 50% earned 14.92%. In 2000, the richest 1% earned 20.81%, while the bottom 50% earned 12.99%. Under Bill Clinton, the richest 1% saw its income share soar by 46.04% while the poorest 50% saw its income share drop by 12.94%

In 2007, the last year we have available, the richest 1% earned 22.83%, while the bottom 50% earned 12.26%. Under 7 years of George Bush, the richest 1% saw its income share increase by 9.7%, while the poorest 50% saw its income share drop by 5.6%.

Thus, we can see that the inequality between the richest 1% and the bottom 50% in terms of income share grew about 5 times faster under Bill Clinton than under George Bush.

But didn't Bush cut taxes for the rich, shouldering the burden for running the country onto the poor? Let's look at the numbers.

In 2000, the richest 1% paid 37.42% of all federal income taxes while the bottom 50% paid 3.91%. In 2007, the richest 1% paid 40.42% while the bottom 50% paid 2.89%. Under 7 years of George Bush, the richest 1% saw its share of federal income tax increase by 8.02% while the poorest 50% saw its share drop by 26.01%.

(None of this changes the fact that many of these shifts are unrelated to who is in office, but for those who want to believe that it does, they should at least have the right information.)

Ethereal said:

Poor to some people is being unable to buy your kid a PS3 for Christmas.

Click to expand...

Prosecuting juveniles in the south bronx, which contains the poorest Congressional district in the country, the #1 crime that we dealt with was the theft or robbery of T-Mobile Sidekicks from other kids. I'm sitting there taking statements from a 13-year old who had his sidekick jacked, while checking the time on my boot-ass $40 phone that I got with my 2-year $10/month family plan. Absolutely surreal.