Why not a national sales tax instead?

[Pandora]

Pandora, the problem with a VAT tax is that it is a regressive tax. The opposite of a progressive tax. The poor pay more, the rich pay less. That seems hardly fair that the rich pay less than the poor.

How on earth can the rich pay less?

If I live on 20k a year the most I would be taxed on is the 20k I made and thats only if you buy new products over used.

the rich spend that much in a day, they would have to pay tons more than the poor

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How on earth can the rich pay less?

If I live on 20k a year the most I would be taxed on is the 20k I made and thats only if you buy new products over used.

the rich spend that much in a day, they would have to pay tons more than the poor

the rich pay less as a percent of income. not total..if you want one where we all pay equal dollar to dollar we would have to get rid of roads and military and everything else so that you could have a amount low enough for the poor and rich to pay they same.

what we need is a progressive income tax, not the regressive one we have now...but cutting most of the loopholes and rebates..taxing all forms of income equally ( working hard should not be taxed less then playing games with money)

 

[Pandora]

the rich pay less as a percent of income. not total..if you want one where we all pay equal dollar to dollar we would have to get rid of roads and military and everything else so that you could have a amount low enough for the poor and rich to pay they same.

what we need is a progressive income tax, not the regressive one we have now...but cutting most of the loopholes and rebates..taxing all forms of income equally ( working hard should not be taxed less then playing games with money)

Why would we have to get rid of roads if taxes were equal? Rich people would pay more for taxes under my plan

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Why would we have to get rid of roads if taxes were equal? Rich people would pay more for taxes under my plan

if they where equal in terms of set amount..there is no tax rate low enough that all could pay equally and also have any money to run the goverment.

 

[Pandora]

This cry for a tax that is fair and the same for everyone is conflict. It can't be the same for everyone and still be fair. That isn't how life works.

It is quite easy to make a case that our current tax laws are about as fair as it gets. These laws were made with compromise, patience, a review of the facts, and the input of nearly everyone. There is a reason America gives a deduction for home mortgage interest, for instance. We know from experience that the families who live in their own homes are more successful as families and as citizens than families who rent. Successful families are good for all of us. We all are better off that more own their homes than rent. It is indeed fair that we use our tax codes to encourage home ownership.

obama has talked about ending the mortgage interest deduction, I doubt it will happen before election day but he has talked about getting rid of it.

We have really different ideas of what is fair. So let me ask

If 4 guys who went to high school together met for dinner, one became a janitor, another a teacher and one a doctor, the 4th ended up on welfare

They each ordered meals and drinks

When the bill comes should it be paid like this?

The doctor pays 95 percent of the bill
the teacher pays 6 percent
the janitor pays 4 percent
and the doctor gives the one who ended up on welfare 5 percent to buy dinner at home
To you is that a fare deal?

That is kind of how the current system works.

Now If I were a doctor and went to dinner with old friends, Id just happily pay the bill but I would be unhappy if my friends expected me to pay it and if one of my friends wanted money to take home to boot.

 

[Pandora]

if they where equal in terms of set amount..there is no tax rate low enough that all could pay equally and also have any money to run the goverment.

But why?

The rich would really be paying tons. They only buy new cars, expensive houses, they are the ones who buy luxury cruises and expensive airplane tickets, their clothes are worth more than all the clothes ill buy in a lifetime

they eat at the finest restaurants and stay in the finest hotels the jewels they buy are worth more than my house

They probably spend more on their pets than I spend on my household budget in a year.

I am unsure why you think it wouldn't generate more money than currently being generated

 

[ProudLefty]

But why?

The rich would really be paying tons. They only buy new cars, expensive houses, they are the ones who buy luxury cruises and expensive airplane tickets, their clothes are worth more than all the clothes ill buy in a lifetime

they eat at the finest restaurants and stay in the finest hotels the jewels they buy are worth more than my house

They probably spend more on their pets than I spend on my household budget in a year.

I am unsure why you think it wouldn't generate more money than currently being generated

Please, would someone tell me what is wrong with how its been done up until 2000? It worked OK under Democrats and Republicans for a very long time. Did people grumble and gripe? Sure, but they'd do that whatever the taxes are - some people just need to gripe and cuss.

Why do people think that a bunch of us amateurs sitting around yakking can come up with a better plan than the one we already have, that has worked perfectly fine up until GW Bush and his team wrecked it by giving away everything, then wondering why they were in a handbasket, and wondering where they were going.

 

[Pandora]

Please, would someone tell me what is wrong with how its been done up until 2000? It worked OK under Democrats and Republicans for a very long time. Did people grumble and gripe? Sure, but they'd do that whatever the taxes are - some people just need to gripe and cuss.

Why do people think that a bunch of us amateurs sitting around yakking can come up with a better plan than the one we already have, that has worked perfectly fine up until GW Bush and his team wrecked it by giving away everything, then wondering why they were in a handbasket, and wondering where they were going.

I don't know anyone who liked the tax system since I was a little kid.

 

[ProudLefty]

I don't know anyone who liked the tax system since I was a little kid.

No one likes democracy, either. Everyone gripes about that, too. "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill

As Lester told me years ago, "You know, Democrats have raised my taxes so I am paying more than ever! Of course, under Democrats I am also making more than I ever dreamed possible. I'm living much better than I used to. If that costs me extra taxes, then so be it. Its a great deal for me."

 

[Pandora]

No one likes democracy, either. Everyone gripes about that, too. "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill

As Lester told me years ago, "You know, Democrats have raised my taxes so I am paying more than ever! Of course, under Democrats I am also making more than I ever dreamed possible. I'm living much better than I used to. If that costs me extra taxes, then so be it. Its a great deal for me."

Democracy has its uses but we live in a republic here

Did Lester work for a union?

 

[GenSeneca]

What I am talking about is different.

Just an across the board tax on all NEW items. The exact rate if it's a pack of cigarettes or a beer or a bible or a nature valley granola bar. New houses and New cars, not used ones. Couldn't the rate be much lower since what I am talking about doesn't cut checks to a bulk of the population?

I must confess that I don't fully understand what you're proposing... Would this national sales tax be meant to replace the income tax, or are you suggesting this in addition to the income tax?

If you want to replace the Federal Income Tax (FIT), then we would have to repeal the 16th or else we'd be stuck with both taxes... and that would suck.

If you do not want to replace the FIT, just add another federal tax on top of it... Well that would suck.

In order to repeal the 16th, we have to allow the politicians in Washington to amend the Constitution, I consider that to be a risk that's simply too great to consider.

 

[Pandora]

I must confess that I don't fully understand what you're proposing... Would this national sales tax be meant to replace the income tax, or are you suggesting this in addition to the income tax?

If you want to replace the Federal Income Tax (FIT), then we would have to repeal the 16th or else we'd be stuck with both taxes... and that would suck.

If you do not want to replace the FIT, just add another federal tax on top of it... Well that would suck.

In order to repeal the 16th, we have to allow the politicians in Washington to amend the Constitution, I consider that to be a risk that's simply too great to consider.

What I am talking about is a national sales tax that replaces IRS, and I agree with you about the 16th. That would be pretty dangerous.

But if it could be repealed completely with no strings attached or even better with strings attached saying it can never be brought back in any form or under any new name. (day dreaming I know)

And the tax I am talking about is just a flat percent on all new items. not a higher percent for beer and cigarettes and a less percent on something healthy. But only on new items, So no double taxing.

And no check to poor people to make up for high taxes, no extra paperwork of any kind.

Couldn't the rate be lower than the suggested rate on the fair tax if there is no progressive rebates?

I also think the federal government needs to stop some of their dorky programs, if we could end some of those stupid programs or at least put the burden of those programs on the states instead, the federal tax on items could be lower and if a state wants to be a socialist nightmare let them do a high tax on items in addition to the federal tax on items.

 

[ProudLefty]

... or at least put the burden of those programs on the states instead, the federal tax on items could be lower and if a state wants to be a socialist nightmare let them do a high tax on items in addition to the federal tax on items.

What do you see as a benefit for America by pushing costs down to the states? We are already seeing some of the dangers of that by the wreckage in Texas from Governor Perry and his drive to lower wages to the point where more than 70% of the working people in Texas can't afford health care. Where is America's win if what we do is pit every state against all other states in economic warfare? Isn't this just a way to hasten the destruction of the middle class?

(btw, "those stupid programs" are not stupid to the people involved in the programs. They worked hard to get the funding and my bet is that an afternoon with them would convince you that the real problem is that they aren't getting enough funding.)

 

[Pandora]

What do you see as a benefit for America by pushing costs down to the states? We are already seeing some of the dangers of that by the wreckage in Texas from Governor Perry and his drive to lower wages to the point where more than 70% of the working people in Texas can't afford health care. Where is America's win if what we do is pit every state against all other states in economic warfare? Isn't this just a way to hasten the destruction of the middle class?

(btw, "those stupid programs" are not stupid to the people involved in the programs. They worked hard to get the funding and my bet is that an afternoon with them would convince you that the real problem is that they aren't getting enough funding.)

My niece is addicted to heroin do to the methadone program. Not only is it a stupid program it is a dangerous program. There are many programs that can be cut or at least be brought down to states rather than through the feds

I am really big on states rights. If a state wants to be pure communistic, I think they have the right to try it, if a state wants to really capitalistic, they have the right. And we have the right to leave one state for another that is more inclined to run the way we like it. I hear only good things about Texas, if its a horrible place, why don't people move? I am sure they can if they feel like it. I hate Oregon politics but I have so much time in my job I have to wait it out about 9 more years. At that point I have to decide if I hate the politics more than I love the ocean and forests.

This would really be a way for us as a nation to see what works. If socialism works then those states will flourish, same for capitalism.

 

[ProudLefty]

My niece is addicted to heroin do to the methadone program. Not only is it a stupid program it is a dangerous program. There are many programs that can be cut or at least be brought down to states rather than through the feds

I am really big on states rights. If a state wants to be pure communistic, I think they have the right to try it, if a state wants to really capitalistic, they have the right. And we have the right to leave one state for another that is more inclined to run the way we like it. I hear only good things about Texas, if its a horrible place, why don't people move? I am sure they can if they feel like it. I hate Oregon politics but I have so much time in my job I have to wait it out about 9 more years. At that point I have to decide if I hate the politics more than I love the ocean and forests.

This would really be a way for us as a nation to see what works. If socialism works then those states will flourish, same for capitalism.

My heart goes out to anyone who is addicted to drugs, legal or illegal. And to their families, as well. Bad stuff, and no one yet has the answer. Of course if we defunded a couple of military programs we could fund decent research into handling addictions, plus provide the facilities and staff to make it work. But instead we build fighters that no one wants, and build spare engines for them that will never be uncrated.

One of the things the Feds have done through the decades, with great success, is in line with your goals, and could easily be expanded to deal with other problems. You speak of the states competing... you will be pleased to learn that already is happening. The highway program is an excellent example. There are federally funded pilot projects, experiments, and research going on in State Transportation Departments and state colleges all over the US. Some succeed, some fail, but the best ides are expanded and eventually adopted nation wide. Those yellow barrels we see in front of every bridge abutment are there because of years of experiments around the nation to find ways to lower highway deaths.

The feds are really quite good at funding and monitoring the results of all kinds of competing ideas at the state's level.