- 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
re: I'd be interested to hear everyone's opinions of a national sales tax...
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:16 am to El Segundo Guy
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:16 am to El Segundo Guy
quote:
I'm not a fricking business.
Registration on your private vehicle is a tax.
I’m not a business when I’m driving.
So, because we are already taxed out our asses, do away with income tax.
I shouldn’t have to pay more for things because I make more than someone else. You are being taxed on your income then taxed on everything you buy.
2
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:18 am to dgnx6
Its not happening. Ever. The closest would be IB Freeman and the Feds would find a way to frick that up. This isn't fairy tale land and I'm not going to concern myself with a pie in the sky notion.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:19 am to Landmass
People need to think in terms of real numbers. If a family of four takes home $100K gross, they are probably paying $20-25K in fed taxes? So in the 30% sales tax scenario they would have to blow almost $60-75K of their money to pay that much in taxes. I don’t think they would come anywhere close to that type of spending outside of their mortgage.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:32 am to DellTronJon
the core of the bill is removal of the IRS and income tax through Amendment....
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:16 am to burke985
quote:
I’d be more in favor of a 22-25%
23% this is the actual number that the bill proposes, the 30% is what it would be with state tax...
but of course democrats will try to maek you believe that its an extra 30% tax
quote:
This bill imposes a national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services in lieu of the current income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate and gift taxes. The rate of the sales tax will be 23% in 2023, with adjustments to the rate in subsequent years. There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property; for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes; and for state government functions.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/25
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 8:17 am
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:17 am to slaughlin
quote:
... as a replacement for the federal income tax. Who would benefit the most? Who would be hurt the most? Overall a good idea or no?
A sales tax on every purchase is already in place. All items sold in the US have a built-in cost based on taxation. No one is exempt from these costs when they make a purchase. It would be far better to simply collect that tax at the point of sale and do away with ALL corporate taxes (corporations do not pay taxes they pass the cost onto consumers) but that would prevent crony capitalism and many companies would be forced to actually compete and they ain't going along with that under ANY circumstance. Low income people pay a far higher % of those costs relative to their income than anyone. They are already impacted about as much as they can stand. The middle class also pays a sizeable portion of those costs. We would all be better served simply being honest and admitting that businesses are not people but are comprised of people who will take advantage of a situation if allowed to do so. Either a sales tax or a flat tax with some personal exemption for a basic level of income is ideal. But that would make it harder to lobby for winners and losers and we can't have that.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:46 am to slaughlin
A national sales tax would be in addition to the income tax.
Anybody who thinks that the USA would give up a mode of confiscating money from us is pretty naive.
Anybody who thinks that the USA would give up a mode of confiscating money from us is pretty naive.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:01 am to Champagne
quote:Have always been a fan of this idea. I think it makes perfect sense. Add to it a VAT that would appease lawmakers that want to hammer the 1-percenters.
I'd be interested to hear everyone's opinions of a national sales tax...
Compared to zillions of individual tax returns, you'd have fewer transaction points to monitor than individuals. (ie: 1 x Walmart or Winn Dixie or Best Buy instead of millions of individual tax returns). In addition, those that live "off the grid" would have to come out of hiding and pay taxes on what they buy.
You buy - You pay.
You don't buy - You don't pay.
Of course, there are those with a problem for every solution. Just hang on for a few minutes...
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:04 am to slaughlin
I’d support it, except Washington would slowly reinstate an income tax. I don’t trust the bastards.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:10 am to lsutiger90
quote:
People need to think in terms of real numbers. If a family of four takes home $100K gross, they are probably paying $20-25K in fed taxes? So in the 30% sales tax scenario they would have to blow almost $60-75K of their money to pay that much in taxes. I don’t think they would come anywhere close to that type of spending outside of their mortgage.
A family of four with an income of $100,000 would, in 2023, have a federal tax burden of $6892 or 6.89% of their income. Thats with standard deductions and tax credits afforded to everyone. Their payroll taxes would be the same with 2 dependents or 20. Their state taxes would vary but would be far less than their federal taxes. They would, however, be paying FAR more than 6.89% of their income to federal tax costs inherent in EVERYTHING they purchase. How much more is difficult to verify but it is no small number. They would also be paying various federal "user" fees such as federal taxes on energy and the like. 30% would seem like an incredibly high increase in federal taxes alone BUT it is nearly impossible to nail down their actual federal tax burden that is significantly increased through federal taxes in the price structure of every purchase they make. That is by design, in my opinion. We are lead to believe we are only paying payroll taxes and various use fees and property taxes when in fact the burden on consumer spending inherent in taxation is incredibly high. We are already paying it, we would be much better served knowing how much. Our ignorance is used against us by design.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:18 am to dgnx6
quote:
Registration on your private vehicle is a tax.
I’m not a business when I’m driving.
So, because we are already taxed out our asses, do away with income tax.
I shouldn’t have to pay more for things because I make more than someone else. You are being taxed on your income then taxed on everything you buy.
Individuals are the ONLY entity in society capable of paying any and all taxes. Corporations are not capable of paying taxes....they must collect the cost of taxation from consumers. If a company is paying taxes and not recouping those costs they will cease to exist just as they would if they were not collecting all of the costs of doing business....revenues have to eventually meet or exceed costs in order to stay in business. No one is going to continue to pay out of pocket to make widgets sold below costs. Not a soul. We are kept ignorant of the true costs of taxation by design and some individuals take advantage of that ignorance and lobby for winners and losers when the free market is the ONLY legitimate judge of such things. Politicians by and large enjoy this situation regardless of their party affiliation and would be ran out of Baton Rouge or Washington on a rail if they made a serious attempt at shining a light on that ignorance. Unfortunately they can rely on their lap dogs on the left and the right to villify anyone who suggests ignoance on this scale is detrimental to society.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:31 am to Champagne
quote:
A national sales tax would be in addition to the income tax.
Anybody who thinks that the USA would give up a mode of confiscating money from us is pretty naive.
The money confiscating is merely a nice tool used by politicians to garner support. The real hammer is the ability to use the tax code as leverage to enrich individuals and eliminate competition that a free market requires. We get caught up in the confiscation because it so over the top and galling but the reality is that we are being exploited because of our economic ignorance to the enrichment of individuals whose only means of existence is exploitation and leveraging of advantage.
I haven't researched a national sales tax much but I will make some educated guesses about the idea. The left will claim it is an unfair burden on low wage earners and the right will lobby incessantly for exemptions for certain items and industries. At the end of the day the issue is a spending problem, it ain't a revenue problem....and spending is used as leverage to pick winners and losers and the majority of Americans are victims. A national sales tax or a flat income tax on any income above a prescribed basic income coupled with a budget requirement that ANY proposal be paid for before it is enacted is the only logical way to finace public governance...but that makes it hard to lobby for favor on all sides and folks are going to buck at anything that removes their buying favor. We are all in on taking away the favor of others as long as ours is kept intact. That is a failing on all of us as individuals.
A sensibly regulated market based on free market realities is the only legitimate way for society to function. The problem is that it makes it damned to difficult to leverage favor and requires actual competition based on merit....we ain't having NONE of that as individuals. You and I may be OK with it but way too many of us like the idea of getting over on the system for us to change it. It will eventually change...it will become untenable as it has every time man has done it.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:42 am to Free888
quote:
I’d support it, except Washington would slowly reinstate an income tax. I don’t trust the bastards.
You are wise not to trust them because there every action indicates they are not to be trusted. The same is true of the bunch in Atlanta and Austin and Baton Rouge and the county commission office. They are all human and as such are more concerned with their own situation than that of society. Armed with that knowledge it behooves us to hold them accountable. Unfortunately they are masterful at making us feel warm and cozy while making the problem out to be those other people....THEM. We are all too willing to fall for their BS or, even more hurtful, arrive at the conclusion that all we can do is vote every once in a while and sit back and take it. There is a reason congress is held in such contempt in general but people think their representatives are better than the institutions overall...its because we put the individual in office, or THEM did, and there is nothing more we can do.
Politicans can, however, be trusted. They can be trusted to do everything they can to hold onto power and enrich them and theirs. That is a huge source of leverage we could use to keep them in line BUT we decide its better to try to curry favor for our interests and to hell with the interests of others. The interests of average people are far more inline with one another than those of the people we elect to represent us....but deep down we think we may get an advantage if only our person is in office...at the least they may better protect some of our interests than the other choice...and they very well may do that IF it coincides with keeping them in power and in a position to enrich themselves and those around them.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 9:47 am to slaughlin
It will move from a "replacement" to a "supplemental tax". That is my biggest fear. Remember when the Feds thought they needed a "little help" and instituted a measly 1% federal income tax in 1913? How's that working out?
Posted on 1/30/23 at 10:13 am to slaughlin
I don't trust the implementation. Sure, income tax unfairly targets higher earners. But a sales tax can easily be used as a weapon to steer purchases. Can you imagine the lobbying and idealogical efforts to place higher taxes on certain items in order to influence purchases.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 10:47 am to Jon A thon
I am keenly interested in the effect on housing.
Currently, contractors pay a sales tax on the goods incorporated into the price of the house. Say, 8% for tax. They also pay sales tax on hammers, saws, heavy equipment, etc., but these are all credited through business depreciation.
So, if the builder can reduce costs by 8%, a $500k house theoretically can be sold for $463k.
But the buyer now has to pay a 30% sales tax on a NEW home, so would now pay $602k for the same house.
True, they are using no-tax dollars, so the value of the dollars are jacked 30%. But the additional amount paid for the new house costs everybody because it elevates surrounding property values, which increase local taxation, and raises the cost of existing used homes. This would have an effect on rental rates, which would rise as the values of property and property taxes rises.
I know that NEW homes under the Fair Tax would be taxed, but if pre-owned homes are not subject to sales taxes, this would be a great wealth-building tool to drop your non-taxed money into.
Anyone that is familiar with the Fair Tax who understands how this portion of the proposal effects economic impact in the housing sector, please chime in.
Currently, contractors pay a sales tax on the goods incorporated into the price of the house. Say, 8% for tax. They also pay sales tax on hammers, saws, heavy equipment, etc., but these are all credited through business depreciation.
So, if the builder can reduce costs by 8%, a $500k house theoretically can be sold for $463k.
But the buyer now has to pay a 30% sales tax on a NEW home, so would now pay $602k for the same house.
True, they are using no-tax dollars, so the value of the dollars are jacked 30%. But the additional amount paid for the new house costs everybody because it elevates surrounding property values, which increase local taxation, and raises the cost of existing used homes. This would have an effect on rental rates, which would rise as the values of property and property taxes rises.
I know that NEW homes under the Fair Tax would be taxed, but if pre-owned homes are not subject to sales taxes, this would be a great wealth-building tool to drop your non-taxed money into.
Anyone that is familiar with the Fair Tax who understands how this portion of the proposal effects economic impact in the housing sector, please chime in.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 12:09 pm to Champagne
quote:
national sales tax would be in addition to the income tax.
Anybody who thinks that the USA would give up a mode of confiscating money from us is pretty naive.
the whole idea is to replace irs. projecting unfounded negativity doesnt count as opinion on sales tax. no one proposes your retort. its not realistic.
either
as now.
flat
sales
choose.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 12:14 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
And the FairTax much more voluntary. If you don't want to pay a lot of taxes, cut down your purchases of new goods.
You do get that in order to be revenue neutral, there won’t be much “option” to cut back.
And that’s ignoring general price increases due to supply chain taxes.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 12:17 pm to Pezzo
quote:
23% this is the actual number that the bill proposes
No, it’s 30%. The 23% figure is fake math for the intellectually impaired.
Here’s where they get the fake 23% figure.
If something costs $100, then it is taxed at 30%, and you pay $130.
What the proponents of the bill argue is that to figure out the “tax rate” you have to figure it from the full cost, which is $130. So if the total cost ($100 plus $30 in tax) is $130, and you are paying $30 in tax, then the $30 is only 23% of the full $130.
That’s just dishonest math on top of a dishonest proposal. Don’t fall for it.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 12:25 pm to CelticDog
quote:
the whole idea is to replace irs.
They are hiring 87,000 new agents. You're not replacing the IRS.
quote:
no one proposes your retort. its not realistic.
To say that FedGov works on an either/or choice is preposterous. You're wanting someone to make a hypothetical A or B choice when it will never play out that way in the real world.
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 12:26 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News