I don't think it would benefit me in the least, but that's a different matter.
You are free to disagree with me on the benefits to you or others. If everyone agreed, then it would probably be done already.
Quote:
I'll own up to the "YOU." Apparently you're not only concerned for you -- it's not personal to you it's for everyone. Still the point is that the complexity is pushed off to some "other entity" and as long as that isn't individuals you're OK with it -- even if the "complexity" results is a worse situation for all involved, would make it worse for more than it betters.
I won't concede that the complexity will be worse for all involved. There will be additional taxes that would be collected by businesses that already collect sales tax. I believe the additional burden upon them to collect the taxes and send them to the state would be less than the burden to the individuals now. Further, there is a cost of doing business in this country, and I doubt it would add much to that cost.
I would further take the position that it is already worse for more (individual taxpayers vs. businesses) already.
Quote:
I don't think the government needs to know all of those things. As I mentioned multiple times, I have never had to tell the government how I earned my money, or where I have my money, or what accounts are held. I have had 401Ks, checking accounts, savings accounts and never had to explain where I had my money. I had to report income on Savings or Checkings accounts, but that's just the same as any type of income.
But why do you have to tell the government any of that? I am sure that you don't go around telling people where and how much money you have in various accounts or how much you get paid. The reason for that is simple, it is none of their business. Likewise, it is none of the government's business. The difference here is you don't mind telling the government about that. I do.
I never can get a good answer to the question of why the government has to know your income and its sources in order to raise revenue. My guess is because the answer is, "It doesn't."
Quote:
The government must be paid for somewhere.... ahh I gotta run but I'll get back to this part.
I agree with this completely. As I stated earlier, the sales tax revenue must meet or exceed our current levels of revenue. So I don't know if you even need to argue this point. On this matter we agree. It is the method of collection that is disputed. I say the less burdensome way would be through a sales tax system. You say the less burdensome way is with the current system we have now. Clearly we disagree.
It is extremely likely that any income tax replacement with a sales tax would result in the largest income stratification growth in the history of the U.S. The rich would benefit tremendously, and the gap between the haves and havenots would grow tremendously. Simplification of the current income tax system is a vastly superior approach than instituting a sales tax to replace it. We cannot allow the income gap to continue to grow, because it will likely lead to instability in the U.S. It may be too late to prevent it, but this would excacerbate that problem. It would be a disaster.
This is the strongest argument for the income tax. However, it is based on the assumption that part of the basis of taxation is to "redistribute wealth." If you take the position that the tax code is there not only for raising revenue, but to redistribute wealth, than the income tax makes perfect sense and the necessity for government knowledge of your income and accounts justified.
However, if the sole purpose of taxes is to "raise revenue" (which I believe it should only be used for), then the income tax is not justified. I disagree with the idea that a national sales tax leading to disaster is premature considering we haven't even put a full plan on paper that could be evaluated by economists. I could be wrong. But let's face it, the current system hasn't stopped the increasing income gap in this country.
I agree. the real issue is either we are raising revenue for the government to spend or we are using government to subsidize the income of the poor with the income of the rich.
which is it people?
we been transferring wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots" for 50 years, and its done absolutely nothing to reduce the level of poor people.
I prefer the idea that everyone is equal, regardless of income level, tax everyone the same.
lets say a person makes $100,000 a year, and buys $40,000 worth of goods.
a 10% sales tax collects $4,000.
Lets say 10 people make $20,000 a year and buy $15,000 worth of goods.
a 10% sales tax collects $15,000.
seems pretty efficient and effective to me.
First 10% won't begin to cover expenses. I've heard analysts say that it would take more than 20%. What do you do with the guy that has to spend more than he takes in for necessities? Oh yeah, you'll exempt necessities, but what are necessities? What about the unemployed? Oh you might give them welfare, but that would require knowledge of their income. What about purchases abroad? Are religious instituions exempt? I might call myself a church. I'd like to know your answers to these and the few questions that I raised in my previous post.
This is the strongest argument for the income tax. However, it is based on the assumption that part of the basis of taxation is to "redistribute wealth." If you take the position that the tax code is there not only for raising revenue, but to redistribute wealth, than the income tax makes perfect sense and the necessity for government knowledge of your income and accounts justified.
However, if the sole purpose of taxes is to "raise revenue" (which I believe it should only be used for), then the income tax is not justified. I disagree with the idea that a national sales tax leading to disaster is premature considering we haven't even put a full plan on paper that could be evaluated by economists. I could be wrong. But let's face it, the current system hasn't stopped the increasing income gap in this country.
I think that the income tax serves both an effective tool for raising money, and a worthy means to redistribute wealth. It's worthy because the less stratified we are, the more likely we are to remain a stable democracy. It hasn't worked as well because the rich have gamed the tax code. If we had a sales tax, that would be such a gift to them that they would not have to further game the system.
First 10% won't begin to cover expenses. I've heard analysts say that it would take more than 20%. What do you do with the guy that has to spend more than he takes in for necessities? Oh yeah, you'll exempt necessities, but what are necessities? What about the unemployed? Oh you might give them welfare, but that would require knowledge of their income. What about purchases abroad? Are religious instituions exempt? I might call myself a church. I'd like to know your answers to these and the few questions that I raised in my previous post.
In Jeff's world, there would be no exception for anything. any exception would defeat the whole purpose of sales tax.
a transaction is a transaction, doesn't matter if its for a gallon of milk, or a six pack of bud light.
unemployed still by things, either they get money from the government or from other sources, IMO, doesn't really matter, they still buy things, they should still pay sales tax.
personally, i'd like to see ALL tax exemptions for religious institutions removed. these institutions are multi million, sometimes multi billion dollar organizations, there is no justification for them to not to pay the taxes any other corporation does.
the only fair share is when everyone pays their share.
I agree. the real issue is either we are raising revenue for the government to spend or we are using government to subsidize the income of the poor with the income of the rich.
which is it people?
Both.
It's there for both things, and both reasons are important and valuable.
It's not a perfect system, but the US has been economically successfully with the presence of an income tax. The crisis of the last couple of years doesn't change that. We absolutely can - and need to - do better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Miller
we been transferring wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots" for 50 years, and its done absolutely nothing to reduce the level of poor people.
While "absolutely nothing" is fairly strong language, I agree with your broad point: that welfare programs from the Great Society on have been ineffective at reducing poverty.
My question to you then becomes, what is your alternative? What
I can already guess we'll disagree pretty strongly on that answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Miller
I prefer the idea that everyone is equal, regardless of income level, tax everyone the same.
This is one of those places where equality (and "fairness" which hovers in the background of all tax discussions) loses a concrete definition and becomes incredibly subjective.
Equality could be (as you advocate), everyone paying the same amount of money. "Every citizen pays $1,000 a year, whether you make $10k/year or $100 billion/year."
Equality could also be everyone paying the same percentage of their income. "Every citizen pays 10% of what they make in a year."
Both are technically "equal" and "fair."
But neither would be the best thing for this country and its citizens.
Further, the fact that the Constitiution had to be amended to allow this intrusion is evidence of the fact that just because the governmnet prints the money, doesn't mean it needs to know where you keep yours and how much you made.
This is an illogical statement with no basis in fact.
__________________
"America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and NEW ORLEANS. Everywhere else is Cleveland."- Tennessee Williams
I won't concede that the complexity will be worse for all involved. There will be additional taxes that would be collected by businesses that already collect sales tax. I believe the additional burden upon them to collect the taxes and send them to the state would be less than the burden to the individuals now. Further, there is a cost of doing business in this country, and I doubt it would add much to that cost.
I hadn't meant "would" make it worse, I meant "or could" -- I fixed that.
I disagree that the cost to business to collect sales taxes and handle the regulations around them is less than what it is for individual taxpayers to do so, but cannot find numbers that break it down by tax type. I guess we'll just disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
I would further take the position that it is already worse for more (individual taxpayers vs. businesses) already.
While it is possible I doubt it -- 65% of taxpayers don't itemize. If one isn't itemizing the effect of doing one's taxes is very little -- back when I didn't itemize I could get taxes done in less than 2 hours at the most, and sometimes as quickly as 15 minutes. The majority of filers use 1040EZ or 1040A both of which can be finished in less than 2 hours
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
I never can get a good answer to the question of why the government has to know your income and its sources in order to raise revenue. My guess is because the answer is, "It doesn't."
It does, if you think an income tax is the easiest and best way to pay for the cost of government and especially so if you disagree with the regressivity of sales taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
I say the less burdensome way would be through a sales tax system. You say the less burdensome way is with the current system we have now. Clearly we disagree.
We disagree.
But my point was going to be: the money must come from somewhere. You claim that a sales tax would be easier but most people think of sales taxes as just those for goods -- but in reality, services are a sale as well. If you have a job, you are selling your service for a price to someone. A true "fair" sales tax system would tax these as well -- and then in effect you would become the seller of your own services and have to pay sales tax as well. The way sales taxes currently are for mostly just goods is incredibly regressive and would result in a HUGE benefit for those at the highest income levels now and as lapaz mentioned will result in a huge spike in the levels of income and wealth disparity.
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson
That depends on how you mean 'pretty well' when you compare the previous 101 years. Standards, rightly I think, have improved for every American since then. The United States also went from a second rate country on par of many South American countries are in today's global affairs to the undisputed sole superpower of the world. We wouldn't have been able to do a fraction of the great things this country as done over the last 100 years without the revenue from income taxes. Our standard of living for the average american as also increased drastically as well.
In fact, I would say as a nation, our best century as been in the one with income taxes, not the one without.
Lol. Sure was tough vanquishing the sole super power of the day twice in 30 years up to 1815, crushing the Barbary pirates, kicking the shyte out of Mexico and half of Central America at will and teamrolling the Spanish juggernaut all while being a second rate country without an income tax.
Check out this second-rate navy produced without income tax:
Standards of consumption are higher, yes. But there has been a price to it. If yuou want to measure it you can look at the stock of debt now passing GDP. In a way we have century long debt bubble. Stay tuned.
__________________
"All you have to do is to tell them (the people) they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
But my point was going to be: the money must come from somewhere. You claim that a sales tax would be easier but most people think of sales taxes as just those for goods -- but in reality, services are a sale as well. If you have a job, you are selling your service for a price to someone. A true "fair" sales tax system would tax these as well -- and then in effect you would become the seller of your own services and have to pay sales tax as well. The way sales taxes currently are for mostly just goods is incredibly regressive and would result in a HUGE benefit for those at the highest income levels now and as lapaz mentioned will result in a huge spike in the levels of income and wealth disparity.
Let's just say that I am able to craft a sales tax in such a way that reduces the regressive nature of the straight sales tax, so that luxury items are taxed at a higher rate, food and other essentials (I know that will be a debate but humor on this point) are not taxed and so forth. If that is done, are you still opposed to the sales tax? Would you agree that with such a sales tax, there would be no need for an income tax and that we would not need to report income?
I know you will say this can't be done, but that isn't my question. If it can be done, would that satisfy your misgivings with the sales tax proposal? Because if it can be done, I don't see why we wouldn't agree on the implementation of such a plan.
Let's just say that I am able to craft a sales tax in such a way that reduces the regressive nature of the straight sales tax, so that luxury items are taxed at a higher rate, food and other essentials (I know that will be a debate but humor on this point) are not taxed and so forth. If that is done, are you still opposed to the sales tax? Would you agree that with such a sales tax, there would be no need for an income tax and that we would not need to report income?
I know you will say this can't be done, but that isn't my question. If it can be done, would that satisfy your misgivings with the sales tax proposal? Because if it can be done, I don't see why we wouldn't agree on the implementation of such a plan.
If it can structured to be less regressive and create enough income sure -- but based on the nature of our government I can see that what is considered a necessity will change as the need to spend increases -- but in essence okay
__________________
I have a photographic memory --- I just don\'t have any film
Linear Mode
