Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on December 01, 2004, 01:40:52 PM
-
One can only hope.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140076,00.html
-
It's a great idea, but no income tax means no deducting your mortgage interest payments. A lot of people say "no way" when they hear that.
ra
-
It's good they're at least talking about doing away with the IRS.
Don't think that's going to happen and I don't even think it would be best right out of the box.
I still favor a combo flat rate income tax coupled to a national sales tax.
-
Wouldn't a flat rate income tax severly cut down on the amount of money the government gets through taxes? Not that I have a problem with that, they have programs that need to be released back to the cesspool they emerged from... but wouldn't that pose a problem initially, along the lines of a lot of unemployment and in turn a failing economy due the rapid growth in unemployment on a large scale?
Surely you don't propose to tax everyone 50% to make ends meet?
-SW
-
To be fair the sales tax must somehow be graduated or there must be some folks exempt. Certain food items for example or those living below poverty level should be exempt. Did you read how much we currently spend on collecting taxes? $400 billion annually. I think it would take only a tiny fraction of that to collect sales tax.
I'm closer to retirement age than many here and this will likely reduce my retirement income. Still, I think this could be very good for the country overall.
-
How did the government raise money before the introduction of the income tax?
-
That's why I said a combo of sales and flat income tax.
Last I heard they were thinking ~15% flat and ~10% sales.
Muck, primarily indirect taxes. "Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption" as Hamilton said.
-
Property taxes, tariffs, stuff like that.
-
One interesting thing to consider.
"Rev.13:
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
A national sales tax could bring us closer to making this a possibility.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
How did the government raise money before the introduction of the income tax?
First, the expenses were smaller per capita, even adjusted for inflation, because the US foreign policy was limited to recognizing embassies from other countries.
My understanding, and correct me if my schooling is incorrect, is that the income taxes being collected began to increase (as a percentage) dramatically around World War I and have been heading upwards since. I would speculate, if that's true, that government spending in other departments came about incrementally in bits and pieces because the large numbers attached to keeping a world class military properly trained and equipped made other tiny projects seem suddenly affordable. Eg, 'Well, if the military can receive the princely sum of $1 MILLION dollars to modernize the inventory of Springfields, then $50,000 is a mere pitt-ance to be requested for funding this gentle-man's new (insert government program here)".
That's my theory, anyhow.
-
National Sales tax is bad!!!!!
The reason they want to get away from an income tax is partially due to the lack of income tax they will get because the reduced incomes we get due to all of the offshoring etc.
-
The reason they want to get away from an income tax is partially due to the lack of income we will get because all of the offshoring etc.
Huh? Reduced income means reduced tax revenue regardless of how you collect it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
One interesting thing to consider.
"Rev.13:
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
A national sales tax could bring us closer to making this a possibility.
I'll have what you're drinking.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
One interesting thing to consider.
"Rev.13:
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
that qoute has been thrown at damn near everything...time to find a new one, maybe...
-
Huh? Reduced income means reduced tax revenue regardless of how you collect it.
Indirectly and in a much smaller scale then it is now. No matter what you still have to buy so they get their tax.
If your income is reduced enough, you pay no tax.
-
I'm sure you guys know it's a prophecy concerning the "end times". I've wondered on occasion what with paper money and all how something like that could be enforced, obviously it couldn't. This made me wonder what would make people willing to give up paper money in favor of say electronic transfer of funds which could be controlled by the government.
For a long time I figured maybe gangs and drug sales would become such a problem that everyone would be willing to allow their spending to be monitored through electronic transfer. This no longer seems to be likely. With 9/11 I thought perhaps preventing funneling to terrorists would be the motivation and that still seems a possibility. However, a national sales tax would almost certainly require for all buying and selling to be done electronically if we're to avoid massive cheating.
-
On top of which, it's gotta be one or the other. I am totally against a sales tax and an income tax. Why give the potato peeling Gov one more way to pick our pockets.
If you have ever visited Canada, the price of stuff up there is unreal. Every time you open your wallet you get hit. National sales tax sux.
"About a trillion dollars now is in the underground economy, untaxed. That's just three items — pornography, illicit drugs and illegal labor. We wouldn't make them more legal if we had a sales tax, but what we would do is tax them when they spent it for personal consumption," Linder said.
How are they going to go after this? Like a drug dealer is going to send in his portion of sales tax that is owed. Either I missed something here or this is a totaly stupid assumption. On the flip side if they are going to look at the money I started the year with and the money I ended the year with and say, you spent this much but only paid this sum in taxes you owe, that is fked up too.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Indirectly and in a much smaller scale then it is now. No matter what you still have to buy so they get their tax.
If your income is reduced enough, you pay no tax.
If average incomes were to decline significantly, the income tax tables would be adjusted to reflect it. The government can't take money that isn't there, no matter if we have an income tax, a national sales tax, or a combination. If incomes drop significantly then tax revenues will drop. But that would be the least of our problems.
-
I think the best thing about a national sales tax is that it will reward those who save or spend frugally.
-
ra you keep talking in the "as if" instead of the reality of the is dropping.
Incomes have dropped while prices have risen.
The government can't take money that isn't there, no matter if we have an income tax, a national sales tax, or a combination. If incomes drop significantly then tax revenues will drop. But that would be the least of our problems.
Your going to far to the other side of the point to make your point. I am not talking about total depression as you allude to at the end of your statement.
What I am talking about is the dependency of Gov on the incomes of the people. This helps to keep them somewhat honest with policy etc when it comes to our earning potential.
If they are going to do something that will affect our pocket books, it will affect theirs.
With a sales tax, who cares, they will get theirs no matter what. I don't care how little money someone has, that little bit will be spent and they will end up paying the tax, where as now they may not pay any tax at all.
-
I think the best thing about a national sales tax is that it will reward those who save or spend frugally.
To a degree but all your essentials will be more expensive thus reducing what you save.
30% sales tax. That is out of control and if people dont think it won't get that high they are crazy.
-
Originally posted by mars01
With a sales tax, who cares, they will get theirs no matter what. I don't care how little money someone has, that little bit will be spent and they will end up paying the tax, where as now they may not pay any tax at all.
If people make less they will spend less which of course means less for the government. The government will have incentive to ensure people have more to spend.
-
Originally posted by mars01
To a degree but all your essentials will be more expensive thus reducing what you save.
30% sales tax. That is out of control and if people dont think it won't get that high they are crazy.
According to that article 23% is expected by the proponents of a national sales tax. However, even 30% of what I spend is still less than what I pay on my income and property tax, I believe.
Guess property tax won't be replaced.
-
If people make less they will spend less which of course means less for the government. The government will have incentive to ensure people have more to spend.
They will spend less on discretionary items. You will spend what you spend to live. That is the problem. Every time you open you wallet you willl curse the gov.
Go to Canada, it's brutal.
According to that article 23% is expected by the proponents of a national sales tax. However, even 30% of what I spend is still less than what I pay on my income and property tax, I believe.
That is a great point! I would like to see those numbers and how they actually would work out.
Directly out of the article:Critics contend that the sales tax would have to be higher than advocates advertise.
"It would require at least a 30 percent rate, that's a very high rate and may create tax evasion on its own," said Chris Edwards, a tax analyst with the Cato Institute. "The highest state sales tax we've got right now is only 11 percent. So there's a great unknown here, would the government be able to actually collect a 30-percent sales tax?"
Don't get me wrong, some of the pros are great, but I don't think the long lasting affects will out weigh them
-
Mars, the problem is the IRS factor in our national existance needs to be reduced or eliminated.
The tax code is bloody huge. It's 6000 pages. A flat tax could knock that down to a pamphlet.
"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork,"
Over half a TRILLION dollars complying and filling out forms; there HAS to be a better way.
How far would that $200 billion in filling out forms go towards better healthcare? Better schools? Cutting the deficit?
There HAS to be a better way.
-
Of course then there's all the tax lawyers outta work and our landfills are almost full. ;)
-
Mars, the problem is the IRS factor in our national existance needs to be reduced or eliminated.
No doubt about it!!! I think the flat tax is a better starting point than a national sales tax.
I think something has to be done with the IRS and tax code, but I am totally against a national sales tax.
-
So far as the retired living on small pensions or those living in poverty there could be a provision to allow them to spend x amount every year tax free.
A flat tax might reduce some of the overhead but not nearly so much as a national sales tax. I hope they give this careful and thorough consideration.
As to the unemployed lawyers, guess there's always the bottom of the ocean.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
How did the government raise money before the introduction of the income tax?
Muck, it was mainly tariffs on imports, insofar as the Federal Gummint was concerned. Perhaps the primary reason for the US Civil War was to prevent the loss of the southern states as a captive market that would either have to buy northern goods or pay tariffs to the northern government.
As to fairness with the flat and/or sales tax, it should be possible to exempt taxes on the amount of income and/or spending equal to the poverty level adjusted for family size, and apply the single rate to whatever amount is left over.
-
As to fairness with the flat and/or sales tax, it should be possible to exempt taxes on the amount of income and/or spending equal to the poverty level adjusted for family size, and apply the single rate to whatever amount is left over.
This can not be done for a National Sales tax. What would you have to do, before you buy something show the people your poverty card so you can be exempt? Food and clothing stamps?
-
Lots of ways to do things Muck.
The flat tax would let you exempt folks at certain income levels for instance.
The sales tax might only apply to things not considered "necessities" for example. Nutritional type food items exempt but tobacco taxed. Clothing below certain price points taxed but $100 blue jeans taxed.
Hey if we can have a 6000 page Tax Code now, I'm SURE they can complicate these simple ideas. ;)
-
Good points Toad!
Your right though, would we just be trading one bad bloated system for another?
Funny example: Say food is exempt from sales tax. Pictures this at your car dealership ...
"Come down and buy this loaf of bread and get your new car free. Loaf costs 35K." lol I know this would never happen but it is funny.
-
Ah, but they key would be simplicity, not 6000 pages of "but if" stuff.
Flat tax? Everybody that makes less than $XXXXX pays none.
Sales tax? Not on food items or medicine; exemptions like that.
Stuff that wouldn't take 600,000 tax accountants to figure out how to file correctly. Yeah.. put H&R Block out of business.
How could it be worse than what we have now? ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
...Stuff that wouldn't take 600,000 tax accountants to figure out how to file correctly. Yeah.. put H&R Block out of business...
Do you really think their lobbyists will ever let this happen? I don't, but then I may be too cynical.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
One interesting thing to consider.
"Rev.13:
16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
A national sales tax could bring us closer to making this a possibility.
nm
-
Do you really think their lobbyists will ever let this happen? I don't, but then I may be too cynical.
Yeah true, but then again, I thought people would never re-elect a president that out and out lied to the american people that led them into an unecessary war.
But that is another thread all together and "All I have to say about that." ( Forest Gump mode off)