jimshiz Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 A "consumption tax" would cause me to buy a lot less discretionary items. If everybody behaved like that, it would hurt the economy because frugal people like me would buy less to save on taxes. Tax revenues would in turn go down and politicians would claim that the "rate" of the "consumption tax" must go up. Necessity items would likely be exempt since "poorer" folks should not be "punished" for just buying things they "need". Also, in border areas; Canada & Mexico and on Indian Reservations, they'd be able to offer items at a much reduced price since they would likely be exempt from any "consumption taxes". This would also hurt the economy in these border areas because the producers of those products would pretty much be unable to compete. I'm sure there'd be a lot of "black market" items cropping up all over the place too. And buying foreign items over the internet would take off like mad. Start another thread on a "flat tax" and include "excemptions to allow ZERO taxes for ALL income less than twice the poverty level in addition to excemptions for dependents. Make it a law that 2/3 of Senate & Congress are required to change the fixed flat tax percentage rate.
Alaska Darin Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 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. 261960[/snapback] The difference is most people would actually pay attention. I'm constantly amazed when people are happy they get a "refund" from the IRS yet have no idea how much money they paid in.
John Adams Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 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? 261857[/snapback] Do you really not see how giving the government control over the marionette strings of behavior is a bad thing? You do, of course, agree with everything the government mandates be taught in schools then. And will mandate in the future? I mean, that's all moeny driven- teach this or get no funding. They're just trying to elicit certain behaviors from people. Can't be anything wrong with that right? I ask again: can't you manage yourself? You would trust the government to program behaviors- that is frightening, but it's your desire, not mine.
John Adams Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 The difference is most people would actually pay attention. I'm constantly amazed when people are happy they get a "refund" from the IRS yet have no idea how much money they paid in. 262013[/snapback] Except that the premise of the income tax is this: "You work hard and get paid for it. Therefore the government gets some of money." If you can't follow the logical progression, good for you. The consumption tax at least gives some small possibility of a choice. For the several people who are concerned that the government will have a hard time budgeting, how about this novel premise: the government would have to curb its spending to make sure it didn't hit budget shortfalls. Ahh, who am I kidding. The Republicans will do what they always do if there is a shortfall. Borrow borrow borrow. Why stop spending?
KRC Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 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.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. 261960[/snapback] A quarterly system, IMO, would INCREASE government spending. You are now putting it on the people to pay their own taxes. What are the chances that these people will pay them, pay them in their entirety, and pay them ontime? Without all three in place, you will now need to pay people to track the delinquents down. This will happen 4 times a year. With the payroll tax or consumption tax, you pay the tax on the spot. You just need to track down the people who owe more than they paid, but at least they paid something. Self-employed is a different story, but you get my point. I do not need IRA's to know that I need to save for retirement. I do not need student loans to say that I need an education. Personal accountability: get some.
GG Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 You just need to track down the people who owe more than they paid, but at least they paid something. Self-employed is a different story, but you get my point. I do not need IRA's to know that I need to save for retirement. I do not need student loans to say that I need an education. Personal accountability: get some. 262105[/snapback] I was kinda hoping JimBob would answer the rhetorical questions. Nothing like proposing a plan that would swell the IRS.
Kevbeau Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Personal accountability: get some. 262105[/snapback] So who's having the T-shirts made up? I'm in for a few.
Alaska Darin Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Except that the premise of the income tax is this: "You work hard and get paid for it. Therefore the government gets some of money." If you can't follow the logical progression, good for you. 262068[/snapback] Don't misunderstand me - I was simply agreeing that forcing someone to write out and sign a check was a better way to get people to pay attention to how much they are giving to Uncle Sam. That doesn't mean I like income taxes.
Terry Tate Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 A "consumption tax" would cause me to buy a lot less discretionary items. If everybody behaved like that, it would hurt the economy because frugal people like me would buy less to save on taxes. Tax revenues would in turn go down and politicians would claim that the "rate" of the "consumption tax" must go up. Necessity items would likely be exempt since "poorer" folks should not be "punished" for just buying things they "need". jimshiz, read the fairtax.org faq list. They address a lot of concerns. It may not convince you, but they put forward a pretty good argument.
John Adams Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Don't misunderstand me - I was simply agreeing that forcing someone to write out and sign a check was a better way to get people to pay attention to how much they are giving to Uncle Sam. That doesn't mean I like income taxes. 262245[/snapback] My reply was directed at JimBob (I'm trying to reason with a JimBob?!?). I like your idea a lot... not from the perspective that it changes anything, but because that would make people understand how much the government steals from them.
KRC Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 My reply was directed at JimBob (I'm trying to reason with a JimBob?!?). I like your idea a lot... not from the perspective that it changes anything, but because that would make people understand how much the government steals from them. 262457[/snapback] Could you stick to one user name per week, please? Darin's idea would definitely work to teach people how much they are paying in taxes. Right now, people overlook that part of their paycheck and just look at the total. If more people paid attention to this part of their check stub, I think you would see more people bitching about government spending. The problem arises in implimentation of that type of tax system. You will continually see budget shortfalls because people are not paying their taxes along with increasing the size of the federal government in order to track these people down.
colfax Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 how about the millions of illegal aliens in this country who work under the table and then wire 3/4s of their paycheck to family out of the country? wouldn't a consumption tax benefit the economy immediately by getting tax dollars out of them?
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 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. 261551[/snapback] Huh When was the last time you were able to deduct your IRA? Oh and by the way there is still that little thing called tax deferred growth. Income tax may go away but they will still find a way to tax your IRAs when you withdraw them.
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Could you stick to one user name per week, please? Darin's idea would definitely work to teach people how much they are paying in taxes. Right now, people overlook that part of their paycheck and just look at the total. If more people paid attention to this part of their check stub, I think you would see more people bitching about government spending. The problem arises in implimentation of that type of tax system. You will continually see budget shortfalls because people are not paying their taxes along with increasing the size of the federal government in order to track these people down. 262476[/snapback] Who me? The implementation of all the simple tax systems (flat tax and consumption tax) is unlikely because you can't do JimBob's social control, and a lot of beuracrats will lose their jobs. And Ameicans don't care about this issue. And politicians have no balls.
KRC Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Who me? The implementation of all the simple tax systems (flat tax and consumption tax) is unlikely because you can't do JimBob's social control, and a lot of beuracrats will lose their jobs. And Ameicans don't care about this issue. And politicians have no balls. 263041[/snapback] The populus is to apathetic and the politicians crave too much power. Bad mix. As far as the usernames, at least this week you expanded your horizons out of the Founding Father era. How is the book coming along? Last I knew, you finished about 150 pages, which should cover the introduction and maybe chapter 1.
GG Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Who me? 263041[/snapback] Yeah, you Bennie. If you had thrown more support behind Hamilton's federalism, a lot of this would be easier to implement
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 The populus is to apathetic and the politicians crave too much power. Bad mix. As far as the usernames, at least this week you expanded your horizons out of the Founding Father era. How is the book coming along? Last I knew, you finished about 150 pages, which should cover the introduction and maybe chapter 1. 263049[/snapback] Through the first two Lincoln Douglas debates... about half way through it. I only have Ben, John, and Abe... all my other names have been left behind.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Through the first two Lincoln Douglas debates... about half way through it. I only have Ben, John, and Abe... all my other names have been left behind. 263090[/snapback] I miss Clancy...
GG Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 I only have Ben, John, and Abe... all my other names have been left behind. 263090[/snapback] Why, afraid that eminem will get caught in the latest East / West coast crossfire?
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Gavin- give gay marriage another go and I'll bring him out. Eminem is dead. He cannot be revived.
Recommended Posts