- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tax reform. Why isn't there more talk of a consumption tax?
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:02 pm
It would seem that a small flat tax on income and business with a broader consumption tax on goods, excluding some basic goods, would be the most fair and would include everyone including those who do not pay taxes.
What are the pros and cons?
What are the pros and cons?
13
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:03 pm to bayouboo
Would be a new category of taxes at the federal level.
Very risky politically.
Very risky politically.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:04 pm to bayouboo
I think taxes should target the poor more. Get some of that money back that we give them to not work
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:05 pm to bayouboo
It's harder to socially engineer via the FAIR Tax than with 50 million taxes primarily based around income and property ownership. It's all about power, control, beaurocracy, and ensuring that every single citizen is in violation of something. That way, when people threaten to raise their heads and speak out against the government in a big way, the government has a cause with which to silence them. Too many laws make criminals of us all. That's what the tax code is designed to do, be so difficult to comply with that everyone is in violation of something, and thus the government always has leverage on everyone.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:05 pm to bayouboo
This is where people like me mention the FairTax (national retail sales tax) and point out that it abolishes the IRS and replaces all forms of individual withholding.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:06 pm to bayouboo
quote:
the most fair
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:06 pm to bayouboo
regressive taxes aren't a good idea. If they were you'd see a more widespread use.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:08 pm to bayouboo
Consumption taxes are the only taxes we should allow.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:23 pm to Haughton99
quote:
regressive taxes aren't a good idea. If they were you'd see a more widespread use.
?
like in all the states and most of Europe/
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
There are so many fringe benefits that it's staggering that Dems haven't championed it:
-Those at and below the poverty line have ZERO tax liability via the prebate.
- Tensions surrounding many aspects of illegal immigration are dialed back since anyone who's spending money in our economy is sending cash to the Treasury. It doesn't deal with their leeching of US citizen entitlements, but at least they're helping fund them.
- TRILLIONS of dollars held by US companies offshore would be repatriated because there's no taxable penalty to hold that capital domestically.
- The US economy would jump to lightspeed due to embedded costs of IRS compliance, regulation and other administrative expenses no longer being passed along to consumers at the end of the line.
- Dems would finally get to feel like they're sticking it to "the wealthy" since there would be progressive (but fixed) taxation of high dollar expenditures. (Spoiler alert: The tax is the same at any dollar amount, and it's the same as the embedded corporate income taxes that are passed along to consumers).
- Competitive market forces would ensure that prices remain essentially unchanged from current retail costs.
- American citizens' take home pay would actually be what they make, not what they have left after Uncle Sam has first pick.
Mash for sauce
-Those at and below the poverty line have ZERO tax liability via the prebate.
- Tensions surrounding many aspects of illegal immigration are dialed back since anyone who's spending money in our economy is sending cash to the Treasury. It doesn't deal with their leeching of US citizen entitlements, but at least they're helping fund them.
- TRILLIONS of dollars held by US companies offshore would be repatriated because there's no taxable penalty to hold that capital domestically.
- The US economy would jump to lightspeed due to embedded costs of IRS compliance, regulation and other administrative expenses no longer being passed along to consumers at the end of the line.
- Dems would finally get to feel like they're sticking it to "the wealthy" since there would be progressive (but fixed) taxation of high dollar expenditures. (Spoiler alert: The tax is the same at any dollar amount, and it's the same as the embedded corporate income taxes that are passed along to consumers).
- Competitive market forces would ensure that prices remain essentially unchanged from current retail costs.
- American citizens' take home pay would actually be what they make, not what they have left after Uncle Sam has first pick.
Mash for sauce
This post was edited on 3/1/17 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:35 pm to Haughton99
quote:
regressive taxes aren't a good idea.
Who said they were?
Posted on 3/1/17 at 12:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Consumption taxes are the only taxes we should allow.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 1:04 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Competitive market forces would ensure that prices remain essentially unchanged from current retail costs.
It's a regressive tax that would have a negative effect on consumer spending, without which, our economy would slow to a crawl.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 2:17 pm to Bullethead88
When prices effectively stay the same, but they're paid for with your whole paycheck? Okay, comrade....
Besides, any time someone takes the "but, but, but, consumption taxes are regressive!" angle, you've already lost the argument. Folks on the lower end of the income spectrum spend more (a higher percentage) of their income, anyway. Lower-middle class life and below is living in a society where cost-of-living is regressive. What the FairTax does is attempt to mitigate some of that by enabling them to maximize their earning power while shielding them from the taxes on the necessities of life.
The subtext of crying "Regressive!" on taxes is that folks who make more money are obligated to fork higher percentages to the Treasury. You can bleed all over it, but it is what it is.
Besides, any time someone takes the "but, but, but, consumption taxes are regressive!" angle, you've already lost the argument. Folks on the lower end of the income spectrum spend more (a higher percentage) of their income, anyway. Lower-middle class life and below is living in a society where cost-of-living is regressive. What the FairTax does is attempt to mitigate some of that by enabling them to maximize their earning power while shielding them from the taxes on the necessities of life.
The subtext of crying "Regressive!" on taxes is that folks who make more money are obligated to fork higher percentages to the Treasury. You can bleed all over it, but it is what it is.
This post was edited on 3/1/17 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 3/1/17 at 2:48 pm to bayouboo
quote:
Why isn't there more talk of a consumption tax?
Because for a capitalist economic system to flourish, consumption needs to be very high, so you don't want to penalize it any more than it already is. It's one of the reasons sales taxes are a bad idea, in addition to the fact that they are regressive, as is the consumption tax of which you speak.
This post was edited on 3/1/17 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 3/1/17 at 2:54 pm to bayouboo
I would absolutely support replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 3:01 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
When prices effectively stay the same, but they're paid for with your whole paycheck? Okay, comrade..
So you assume that prices won't go up even when the VAT is added.
That sounds like voodoo economics to me. You got a link, or did you want to accept your one-person poll?
Posted on 3/1/17 at 3:04 pm to I B Freeman
I would support even a VAT but not a BAT to replace the income tax.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 3:04 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
The US economy would jump to lightspeed due to embedded costs of IRS compliance
I found the problem.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 3:09 pm to Bullethead88
quote:
So you assume that prices won't go up even when the VAT is added.
Wanna know how I know you don't understand the slightest thing about the NRST?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News