Consumption Taxes anyone?

[Sundancer]

This sounds pretty good to me. Rather than taxing people just because they generate money (the premise of which is that we are all slaves), how about a tax on goods consumed?

 

I kind of like this. IT simplifies a lot, and if you don't want to be part of the "system," you don't have to be: don't buy things (ha ha). Really though, the guys in the bunkers in Colorado would never have to pay taxes again, which should be their right. Rich people pay more, because they consume more, which should make Dems happy. Poor people pay less, because they consume less.

 

The losers, like in a flat tax system, are the accountants.

 

Who's with the G-man?

[IUBillsFan]

This sounds pretty good to me. Rather than taxing people just because they generate money (the premise of which is that we are all slaves), how about a tax on goods consumed?

 

I kind of like this. IT simplifies a lot, and if you don't want to be part of the "system," you don't have to be: don't buy things (ha ha). Really though, the guys in the bunkers in Colorado would never have to pay taxes again, which should be their right. Rich people pay more, because they consume more, which should make Dems happy. Poor people pay less, because they consume less.

 

The losers, like in a flat tax system, are the accountants.

 

Who's with the G-man?

260513[/snapback]

 

That would be...Fair tax

[gmac17]

i like it.

[PTS]

This sounds pretty good to me. Rather than taxing people just because they generate money (the premise of which is that we are all slaves), how about a tax on goods consumed?

 

I kind of like this. IT simplifies a lot, and if you don't want to be part of the "system," you don't have to be: don't buy things (ha ha). Really though, the guys in the bunkers in Colorado would never have to pay taxes again, which should be their right. Rich people pay more, because they consume more, which should make Dems happy. Poor people pay less, because they consume less.

 

The losers, like in a flat tax system, are the accountants.

 

Who's with the G-man?

260513[/snapback]

 

Count me out. My accountant is God-sent. I get most of my taxes back.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Even know I get most of my taxes back, I like the idea.

 

Also, put insurance on the price of a gallon of gas.

[KRC]

This sounds pretty good to me. Rather than taxing people just because they generate money (the premise of which is that we are all slaves), how about a tax on goods consumed?

 

I kind of like this. IT simplifies a lot, and if you don't want to be part of the "system," you don't have to be: don't buy things (ha ha). Really though, the guys in the bunkers in Colorado would never have to pay taxes again, which should be their right. Rich people pay more, because they consume more, which should make Dems happy. Poor people pay less, because they consume less.

 

The losers, like in a flat tax system, are the accountants.

 

Who's with the G-man?

260513[/snapback]

 

Works for me. Sounds like the fairest system out there.

 

BTW, are you paying attention to Arthur Farnsworth's case in Bucks County? I am guessing that he will still B word about this unless there is a SPECIFIC law dictating that these taxes are to be paid on goods.

[Sundancer]

Works for me. Sounds like the fairest system out there.

 

BTW, are you paying attention to Arthur Farnsworth's case in Bucks County? I am guessing that he will still B word about this unless there is a SPECIFIC law dictating that these taxes are to be paid on goods.

260681[/snapback]

 

Consumption tax, for me, is a baby step in the right direction. It makes the taxation fairer and the system simpler. It doesn't solve the problem of government bloat (except at the IRS) or the willingness of everyone in Washington to spend my money freely.

[KRC]

Consumption tax, for me, is a baby step in the right direction. It makes the taxation fairer and the system simpler. It doesn't solve the problem of government bloat (except at the IRS) or the willingness of everyone in Washington to spend my money freely.

260723[/snapback]

 

You are correct. I do not see it getting through Congress, however, because both parties have too much at stake through the current system. If you employ a consumption tax, you will be taking away "issues" from campaigns (class warfare, etc).

[Alaska Darin]

The greater issue has little to do with the way we're taxed. Until the government controls spending, trying to change they way they steal our money is the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a brain tumor.

[IUBillsFan]

Count me out. My accountant is God-sent. I get most of my taxes back.

260567[/snapback]

 

Except for those payroll taxes. Also the fact that there would there would be no corp income tax so you would get a lot of overseas companies relocating over here, according to the articles that I've read.

[JimBob2232]

I am for this in principle, but there are 2 big drawbacks.

 

1) No longer will there be tax deductions encouraging a behavior (i.e. student loan interest deduction, home mortgage interest deduction, emission free vehicles, charitable contributions, etc.)

 

2) A coordinated effort to curtail discresionary spending by a large group of citizens, could result in signifigant reductions in federal revenue.

 

3) Related to #1, IRAs and 401ks become meaningless without tax deferment. Why put my money in an IRA? Might as well put it in a non-ira account where i can have easy access to it. This could cause people spending money originally (and currently) intended for retirement.

 

The biggest problem we have today is that people do not understand taxes. I spoke with a good friend today who was highly educated, with an engineering degree, and a well paying job, who had not a clue about taxes. He actually thought it was possible to recieve a pay raise and take home less money because you were in a higher tax bracket. The concept of marginal tax brackets was lost on him.

 

My point is, if someone with as much education (and pays as much taxes as he does), has no clue how our current tax system works, something is wrong.

 

Personally, I would like everyone to have to write a check every quarter for the taxes they have to pay. Do away with the payroll deductions. I would love to see everyone in this country pony up $1000, 2000 or $10,000 per quarter to the federal government. THAT my friends is how you solve the problem of goverment spending.

 

Zell Miller said it best when he "people don't complain about taxes because they are selfish or stingy. They complain because they simply don't believe they're getting their money's worth."

 

Make them cut the check...they will raise hell, and our problem will quickly be solved.

[JimBob2232]

Of course I should list some of the positives that have not been brought up.

 

1) current untaxed earnings (especially for illegal activities) now becomes taxable. If you are a drug dealer, or earn money through illegal gambling or prostitution rings, you would be stupid to claim that money on your taxes. But you know they are going to buy the jewlery, cars, houses, etc., and when they do, the government will get a cut of that.

 

2) You get to control the amount of money you pay in taxes. Invenstment income is tax-free.

[John Adams]

I am for this in principle, but there are 2 big drawbacks.

 

1) No longer will there be tax deductions encouraging a behavior (i.e. student loan interest deduction, home mortgage interest deduction, emission free vehicles, charitable contributions, etc.)

 

Umm. And?

 

How about we take the drastic step of not putting the government in charge of babysitting you. Can you take care of yourself or not? My god. You want the government building in all these nanny-functions for you? Is it the government's job to wetnurse? If you think so, you have a terrible view of people, and a scary view of the government.

 

2) A coordinated effort to curtail discresionary spending by a large group of citizens, could result in signifigant reductions in federal revenue.

 

Good gracious: since when is giving back more power to the people a "drawback."

 

3) Related to #1, IRAs and 401ks become meaningless without tax deferment.  Why put my money in an IRA?  Might as well put it in a non-ira account where i can have easy access to it.  This could cause people spending money originally (and currently) intended for retirement.

 

LOL. You must be a Democrat or socialist or something; do you trust anyone?

[/dev/null]

I am for this in principle, but there are 2 big drawbacks.

 

1) No longer will there be tax deductions encouraging a behavior (i.e. student loan interest deduction, home mortgage interest deduction, emission free vehicles, charitable contributions, etc.)

 

2) A coordinated effort to curtail discresionary spending by a large group of citizens, could result in signifigant reductions in federal revenue.

 

3) Related to #1, IRAs and 401ks become meaningless without tax deferment.  Why put my money in an IRA?  Might as well put it in a non-ira account where i can have easy access to it.  This could cause people spending money originally (and currently) intended for retirement.

261406[/snapback]

 

1 + 1 + 1 != 2

 

First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, beist the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe

[JimBob2232]

huh.gif

1 + 1 + 1 != 2 doh.gif

 

Well, i had 2 listed...then i edited and added 3....oh well

 

at any rate...I am NOT a socialist. In fact, I am about as conservative as they get. Making blanket statements about me is just asinine.

 

How about we take the drastic step of not putting the government in charge of babysitting you. Can you take care of yourself or not? My god. You want the government building in all these nanny-functions for you? Is it the government's job to wetnurse? If you think so, you have a terrible view of people, and a scary view of the government.

 

If you have taken any sort of basic economics course, you will know that there are basically 2 kinds of taxes. Those that are levied to generate revenue, and those that are levied to elicit a certain behavior. The current tax code is set up in a manner to encourage people to act in a certain way, which benefits us all. An ownership society is a good thing. People driving electric cars is a good thing. Getting an education is a good thing. The government is trying to encourage this behavior by giving people tax breaks for doing these things. This benefit of the current tax system will be gone with a consumption tax.

 

Good gracious: since when is giving back more power to the people a "drawback."

 

Any business needs to know what their revenues are so they can budget accordingly. This system has the potential to be very volitile in revenue streams to the government. A coordinated effort could make it MUCH worse. I personally feel that taxes are WAY too high currently, and I like every tax cut proposal out there. The government is too big, and has too many needless programs. But the proper way to go about correcting the problem is not to just instantaneously stop funding the government. The correct approach is to elect people to represent you who will actually work towards real meaningful fiscal reform in washington.

 

 

And one clarification....IRAs were created for a reason. To encourage people to save for retirement. Obviously there is a need for people to save for their own retirement. A consumption tax would eliminate IRAs. They would no longer serve a purpose.

 

 

And finally, I want to again clearly state that i am not outright against this consumption tax idea. It has some problems that need to be worked out. It is most definatly something we should consider. Is it the best plan out there? I dont know. We need to do something, but whatever it is, it should not completely eliminate many of the good aspects of our current tax system (and yes....there are some...not many, but some.)

[Terry Tate]

That would be...Fair tax

260534[/snapback]

That's the way to go right there. Excellent link, thank you.

[John Adams]

Well, i had 2 listed...then i edited and added 3....oh well

 

at any rate...I am NOT a socialist.  In fact, I am about as conservative as they get.  Making blanket statements about me is just asinine.

If you have taken any sort of basic economics course, you will know that there are basically 2 kinds of taxes.  Those that are levied to generate revenue, and those that are levied to elicit a certain behavior.  The current tax code is set up in a manner to encourage people to act in a certain way, which benefits us all.  An ownership society is a good thing.  People driving electric cars is a good thing.  Getting an education is a good thing.  The government is trying to encourage this behavior by giving people tax breaks for doing these things.  This benefit of the current tax system will be gone with a consumption tax.

 

You believe in government babysitting of all these behaviors, because people can't be trusted... and somehow think of yourself as something other than socialist?

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions: when you start giving the government control over people, it never ends. Why do we need education breaks? To encourage people to get education? Why do we need mortgage interest deductions? Because we want people to have homes. Why do we restrict gun ownership? Because we don't want people to shoot each other. Why do we make sure no one sees a naked butt? Because people will go out and start raping each other if we don't. And on and on.

[erynthered]

You believe in government babysitting of all these behaviors, because people can't be trusted... and somehow think of yourself as something other than socialist?

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions: when you start giving the government control over people, it never ends. Why do we need education breaks? To encourage people to get education? Why do we need mortgage interest deductions? Because we want people to have homes. Why do we restrict gun ownership? Because we don't want people to shoot each other. Why do we make sure no one sees a naked butt? Because people will go out and start raping each other if we don't. And on and on.

261736[/snapback]

 

Calm down Abe.

 

 

So I suppose you support the IRS then. His were thoughts and ideas, where's your's Abe.

 

His words: "I am for this in principle"

[JimBob2232]

You believe in government babysitting of all these behaviors, because people can't be trusted... and somehow think of yourself as something other than socialist?

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions: when you start giving the government control over people, it never ends. Why do we need education breaks? To encourage people to get education? Why do we need mortgage interest deductions? Because we want people to have homes. Why do we restrict gun ownership? Because we don't want people to shoot each other. Why do we make sure no one sees a naked butt? Because people will go out and start raping each other if we don't. And on and on.

*

 

Ya know... its tough to have a rational discussion when the person you are conversing with does not seem to be able to be rational.

 

I dont see how giving people a tax break to help aid them in going to college and and bettering themselves (and their country) gives the government control over them.

 

I dont see how aiding people in owning land, providing permanent shelter and a suitable place to raise their children is the government controlling them.

 

Are you saying that all taxes levied to solicit a specific behavior should be removed from our laws?

[GG]

3) Related to #1, IRAs and 401ks become meaningless without tax deferment.  Why put my money in an IRA?  Might as well put it in a non-ira account where i can have easy access to it.  This could cause people spending money originally (and currently) intended for retirement.

 

Since there would be no more tax on investment income, your regular investment accounts would behave exactly like 401k. The reason that you don't withdraw early from 401k is the penalty you pay on early withdrawal. If you're worried about protecting people from themselves, you can still impose early withdrawal penalties for money in retirement plans.

 

The biggest problem we have today is that people do not understand taxes. 

 

................

 

Personally, I would like everyone to have to write a check every quarter for the taxes they have to pay. Do away with the payroll deductions.  I would love to see everyone in this country pony up $1000, 2000 or $10,000 per quarter to the federal government.  THAT my friends is how you solve the problem of goverment spending.

 

Zell Miller said it best when he "people don't complain about taxes because they are selfish or stingy. They complain because they simply don't believe they're getting their money's worth."

 

Make them cut the check...they will raise hell, and our problem will quickly be solved.

261406[/snapback]

 

Exactly how would replacing a steady weekly revenue stream with a quarterly model based on people's quarterly contributions going to this solve the problem with government spending? How would you determine what each individual contributes? What is the difference in writing out the check and seeing that 40% of your gross pay was taken away by various deductions? I think the latter method is more vulgar to me.