PDA

View Full Version : Taxes....


CFC
18-11-2004, 08:10 PM
I was working on a paper for AP Government on one of the Senator elections this year. One of the keys issues in the campaign was taxes.

One of the candidates was in support of dropping the current federal tax code(income taxes, IRS, etc) and replacing it with a giant 25%national sales tax. I thought the idea was good but it was responded to very negatively. Why is this such a bad idea?

barrington
18-11-2004, 08:58 PM
Because a billionaire who chooses to buy very little will contribute nothing to society, whereas a pauper who buys everything he can afford will contribute more. The primary form of taxation should ALWAYS be income tax - people contribute according to what they can pay.

And your remark about a "giant 25% sales tax" made me giggle as a Brit. You know that everything in the UK carries a 17.5% sales tax already, right?
We got shafted for that one years ago.

hasselbrad
18-11-2004, 11:02 PM
Actually it's a very good plan. Tell the people in your class this...
"You are a bunch of ignorant fucktards!" Not you Barrington. Just his class. You're just gently misguided. ;)

Click this link and scroll down until you see "Let's Demagogue The Fair Tax".

http://boortz.com/nuze/200410/10262004.html

Enjoy.
The Fair Tax would be a tax on consumption. In a nutshell, it would be only on new items and there would be a rebate check sent to each family every month to cover the cost of necessities, like food and medicine. The amount would be a set figure per number in the household. Also, the embedded taxes we're already paying on items would be gone. Harvard economists estimate a drop of about 21% in consumer prices.
This drop in price would also make it more likely that we could export more goods than we currently do. Maybe, even bring some of those "outsourced" jobs back into the states.
I would rather see them exempt items like food and medicine, but this is how the plan stands. Your new Congressman DeMint is all about doing away with the IRS so this may begin to get even more play.
The guy whose link I posted is named Neal Boortz. I'm not sure if you are familiar with him, but he's a Libertarian talk show host who is co-writing a book with John Linder, who co-sponsored the bill.
If anyone would like to get into a fist-fight over this I'll be glad to oblige. :p

CFC
19-11-2004, 01:58 AM
Sales tax is only 7% here. I don't have to tell my class it, I don't even mention it very often in my paper. I just thoughtit sounded like a good idea.

hasselbrad
19-11-2004, 01:05 PM
http://fairtax.org/

A little more info for you.

Donnie Dorko
19-11-2004, 04:15 PM
Yeah, I've never agreed that taxation should be based on ability to pay. That seems to punish those who work hard to get excellent jobs, and favour those who are lazy. True, there are circumstances where people are wealthy through inheritance, for example, or poor through circumstances they couldn't possibly hope to control, but I'd argue consumption is always the fairest way to tax.

Exempt utter necessities like food and medicines and thus your homeless guy is unlikely to have to pay any taxation, the exact same status he has under income tax, your billionaire will (sorry Barrington, but if you have billions, you buy stuff with it to make life more enjoyable. I'd be surprised if you could find a billionaire living in a 3 bedroom driving a second hand car) buy lots and pay huge amounts, but those in between would be fairly treated, so the lazy middle classer (like myself) who can be comfortable without a job (at the moment) would still be contributing through sales tax.

However Barrington is right that our taxation on sales is already pretty high. We'd require a much bigger hike to make it work in the UK, but I still think it'd be a fairer form of taxation. Ability to pay seems to punish the wealthy just for being wealthy, and favour the poor just for being poor. This means those who are wealthy through hard work are penalised, those who're poor by choice, or sheer arrogance to work menial jobs, are favoured. Consumption seems fairer to me.

ryan
19-11-2004, 06:11 PM
Because a billionaire who chooses to buy very little will contribute nothing to society, whereas a pauper who buys everything he can afford will contribute more. The primary form of taxation should ALWAYS be income tax - people contribute according to what they can pay.

And your remark about a "giant 25% sales tax" made me giggle as a Brit. You know that everything in the UK carries a 17.5% sales tax already, right?
We got shafted for that one years ago.

17.5 is ungodly. that must suck big time.
in ohio, it's 7%...and i'd be really pissed if they up'd it any more.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 06:30 PM
17.5 is ungodly. that must suck big time.
in ohio, it's 7%...and i'd be really pissed if they up'd it any more.
we have a 21% sales tax!
but we have one of the best social systems of the world,

ryan
19-11-2004, 06:32 PM
we have a 21% sales tax!
but we have one of the best social systems of the world,

i like being taxed less so i can handle my own shit and don't have to bother with the government providing me with services, like healthcare, etc.

Flightfreak
19-11-2004, 06:35 PM
i like being taxed less so i can handle my own shit and don't have to bother with the government providing me with services, like healthcare, etc.

well, i think it both has his pro's and contra's
i can't really tell what the best is.

Nick
20-11-2004, 02:23 AM
Ha! You all suck we have no sales tax here in Oregon. Suckers! Actually I have a good way to get out of paying taxes. You see there is no income tax in Washington and no sales tax in Oregon (or maybe it was there's no property taxes in Washington. Oh well it doesn't matter, either way I'm eliminating two forms of taxation.) So what I'm going to do eventually is move to Washington but only just barely over the border that way I will technically be a Washington resident and won't have to pay income taxes but I will be close enough to Portland, Oregon that I can do all my shopping in Oregon and so I would not have to pay sales taxes either. MWAHAHA! I'm a genius, well I would be accept there are actually already people who do this.

Jacoby
20-11-2004, 05:22 AM
Ha! You all suck we have no sales tax here in Oregon. Suckers! Actually I have a good way to get out of paying taxes. You see there is no income tax in Washington and no sales tax in Oregon (or maybe it was there's no property taxes in Washington. Oh well it doesn't matter, either way I'm eliminating two forms of taxation.) So what I'm going to do eventually is move to Washington but only just barely over the border that way I will technically be a Washington resident and won't have to pay income taxes but I will be close enough to Portland, Oregon that I can do all my shopping in Oregon and so I would not have to pay sales taxes either. MWAHAHA! I'm a genius, well I would be accept there are actually already people who do this.

Sweet. I'm hopefully going to be going to school in Portland. No sales tax is a definite bonus.

Nick
21-11-2004, 07:53 AM
I feel I should warn you Jacoby, there's a huge income tax here in Oregon. I know a lot of kids who try getting a job and going to school at the same time in order to pay for college but it doesn't do much good because the government takes a big wet bite out of every pay check meaning that there's not much left over to put towards college.

Liam
21-11-2004, 08:01 AM
Australian Taxation 101:

In addition to the regular income tax, everything in Australia (except for education and womens sanitary products) is subject to a 10% goods and services tax.

I'm not sure how our income tax rates compare to overseas rates, but I can tell you how I am taxed and you can work the rest out for yourselves.

I earn around 40K a year in my current job. For people in my income bracket, the government helps itself to about 9 grand, then its around 30 cents in every dollar for each dollar you earn over $27000.

Fairly reasonable, but I'd rather pay nothing.

aspro
21-11-2004, 01:15 PM
I dont believe that everyone should be taxed equally, Those that are more capable , should be supporting the less fortunate. The rich are never taxed to the point of being worse of than the poor, so the incentive is still there.

Jacoby
21-11-2004, 02:38 PM
I feel I should warn you Jacoby, there's a huge income tax here in Oregon. I know a lot of kids who try getting a job and going to school at the same time in order to pay for college but it doesn't do much good because the government takes a big wet bite out of every pay check meaning that there's not much left over to put towards college.

Shit.

Actually, I only need enough to fly back home every month or two. Thanks for the heads up.

Donnie Dorko
22-11-2004, 12:20 AM
I dont believe that everyone should be taxed equally, Those that are more capable , should be supporting the less fortunate. The rich are never taxed to the point of being worse of than the poor, so the incentive is still there.

Yeah, but I still don't see how it can be justified that those more capable should be forced to support those less fortunate. Whatever happened to free choice? One's earnt money should, where possible, be subjected to free choice. How do we know those well off aren't likely to be charitable anyway? I'm very charitable myself, I appreciate my middle-class lifestyle, I don't need the government to force me to help those less fortunate, I want to. I just don't see the justification in making those who don't do so. If they want to be heartless, that is their right.

aspro
22-11-2004, 09:21 AM
What about the people who contribute to society in other ways than just making money? Should someone with barely enough money to survive have to prop up the government to the same extent as someone with (almost) an endless supply of wealth? Surely it is more taxing on the people with little money than the ones with lots, yet both parties gain from it.

Donnie Dorko
22-11-2004, 12:14 PM
What about the people who contribute to society in other ways than just making money? Should someone with barely enough money to survive have to prop up the government to the same extent as someone with (almost) an endless supply of wealth? Surely it is more taxing on the people with little money than the ones with lots, yet both parties gain from it.

Poorer people buy less, thus are subjected to less sales tax. The tax may appear uniform but in practice it's not. However in theoretical terms it means you're not being directly penalised for earning more, which is exactly what income tax does.

apoggy
22-11-2004, 12:44 PM
Just lower the tax on bread and beans, the poor cant complain then :D

hasselbrad
24-11-2004, 10:33 PM
poggs=funny!

On a serious note, the FairTax is a tax on new goods only. This means that items that are, to borrow a term from the car companies, "pre-owned" would be exempt from taxation. Coupled with the credit check for necessities, buying items at thrift shops and other second-hand stores could result in poor folks paying little if any taxes. Likewise, the big spending consumer that requires a new car every other year and is addicted to cutting edge technology, pays more.