Quote of the Day
For all of the misguided talk about Mike Huckabee being a "populist," his enthusiastic support for a regressive national sales tax should effectively end the discussion.
In case there's any lingering confusion about just how ridiculous this policy is, Jon Chait sets the record straight:
Basically, trying to explain why the Fairtax is a bad idea is like trying to explain why having trained elephants perform open-heart surgery on every first-grader in America is a bad idea. The whole idea is one bit of lunacy stacked upon another, so when you focus on any one element of it, you let the other side suck you into into arguments about details -- Maybe there could be benefits to preemptively fixing the hearts of six year olds! Perhaps elephants do have the potential intelligence to one day perform this task!! -- that inadvertently make the plan sound semi-credible.
If you're still not convinced, take a look at Brad DeLong's piece in Salon this week.
Among GOPers he may be relatively populist, but in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
who the hell cares about what this freak has to say??
god damnit havent we heard and seen enough from these assholes to know who to vote for already???????
How much tax do the wealthy actually pay? With all the loopholes and exemptions, what is the effective tax rate on them? Anyone have some hard numbers on this?
I like the idea of elephants doing open-heart surgery. They should be up to the tusk.
oops, I meant task. :)
simon @ 2:
Oh, I don't know. Maybe Americans. After all, it's not inconceivable that he'll be preznit next year. And it's not like Glenn Beck is going to shut up about it any time soon.
That Salon piece was excellent, by the way. Thanks for the link.
Why not a flat tax, everyone pays the some amount, sound fair?
Republican populism involves manipulating the religious in this country into believing that they will stop the gay hordes that will come to pillage our quiet and peaceful towns and villages and that they will actually come through with their Jesus talk.
What's wrong with a "conspicuous consumption" tax? I buy just what I need. I don't need plasma TVs, 3 SUVs and a Chia pet. If that would help reduce my state, federal, and since I live in NYC - city tax, I'm all for it. Plus it might encourage people not to consume so much crap that pollutes our environment to boot.
While they're at it they can do away with the "single without child" tax penalty. Why should I pay more in taxes because I'm single with no kids? What is it that conservatives say about welfare? If you can't afford kids, don't have them? If conservative white middle class families with kids want a tax break for being married with kids, and I have to pay more because I'm single with no kids, that's back door welfare for the middle class isn't it?
Maybe Huckabee's onto something. His idea might need some tweeking but I'm all ears! The Democrats should be all ears too and maybe even co-opt it themselves.
I think it's more like a porcupine giving foot-massages to the elderly. again, if you get pulled into the details about it it's going to sound bad...but
what is this jerk talking about? And this isn't headline news? Republican front runner sounds like a lunatic! news at 11.
bill w @ 4:
I have had the shittiest of shitty days, but your comment made me laugh. I thank you very much :lol:
I like the idea of a consumption tax. I've heard the idea expressed in a variation in The Eleventh Hour as an environmental tax on transportation and other pollution causation that isn't factored into the actual costs of goods.
If it's done right, possibly as a reduction in income tax rather than elimination, it would make the whole system potentially more pro-active instead of regressive as you suggest.
It's too easy to dismiss the idea out of hand.
Ruthless People @ 8:
I agree, if people were taxed on things they over use, say like luxuries or excessive purchases, say if they are using more then a certain amount of gas in there car they should have to pay an extra tax, it might just work. people would think twice about certain things if they had to pay to have them. of course this still only works on the middle class, because the real excessive assholes in our society who cry the most about paying any taxes at all have enough money so they won't care that they have to pay more for their 2nd and 3rd Hummer, or a plasma TV or whatever.
It should be easy for Democrats to win this year. All they have to do is show the footage from the first couple republican debates where all the candidates claimed chimpinomics was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
They can't spin and lie out of that.
Tweety just compared his comments at the debates last night to Jihadist rhetoric.
RS for President
http://tinyurl.com/37ybve
Sure, a flat tax sounds great, #6. Except that when you actually examine a flat tax in terms of the BURDEN, that same percentage looks NOTHING like "everybody pays the same."
Tax the corporations. Actually take their money.
Let the elephants do the accounting and NO ONE gets paid except the rich.
I agree, it will crucify Huckabee if he is the nominee.
First, the numbers needed to replace the income tax with a
sales tax are always WAY low, when run out by it's supporters.
It will end up being 35-38-40% in the long run.
number two, it is the MOST regressive tax possible, because
corporations, and wealthy individuals will immediately see HUGE
benifits, while the rest of us will not.
Lastly, it will encourage a massive underground economy, where
people simply keep all personal transactions off the books.
It's a screwy idea, and just shows that Huckabee, while well
meaning, has spent too many years in the Reagan Echo Chamber.
Some weeks back bush was talking about breaking the foreign oil addiction and all. He said if we did get to the point where we use less gas, there would be less money coming in from gasoline sales taxes to help pay for road building and repairs and such. He said if that happened they might need to set up a user fee for traveling on the roadways. He said for example someone driving on the road certain days at certain times might pay more or less than other days and other times.
It is pretty clear from the links cited that neither of those persons have the slightest idea of what constitutes a regressive tax. The proposed flat personal tax is regressive ; ten percent is a lot to someone living on minimum wage and negligible to a person with a six figure income. A sales tax is a consumption tax is inherently non-regressive, particularly if it is a value added tax. This system works very well in most of the world and the only real cheating opportunities are cash businesses where some skimming is possible. Even there, an audit will likely catch a cheater. Most jurisdictions that use this system have large numbers of basic commodities, like bread and milk, that are not subject to taxation to give further tax relief to low income families.
I hope he wins the nomination. That way any Democrat can bulldoze him. Although, Georgie Boy won twice( says a lot about us, huh) so I am not holding my breath.
Many states and countries finance their governmental budgets through sales taxes. The typical VAT in Europe is around 17%. They also have something called Patrimony Tax, which is a tax on a person's total net worth, starting at estates valued at over 100,000 Euro. It was originally designed to force people of high net worth to declare all of their assets. It is very low, less than 1%. But if you didn't declare your assets, and the taxing authority discovered them, they would treat the newly discovered assets as INCOME, and tax them at the 35% rate. HAHAAAA! The United States would do well by looking at the tax systems of Europe, and how they are able to raise the QUALITY OF LIFE for their citizens. Free education and health services for life. I have lived in Spain and the USA back and forth for the last 15 years. I am going to stay in Spain after the 2008 election. The standard of living may be higher in America, but the quality of life is better in Europe.
Gorgei @ 14:
this time he's spot on. that's exactly what i was thinking when i heard that talibangelic horseshit.
sometimes matthews has his moments.
Look, you don't need any fancy non-existent technology to make a progressive or graduated sales tax. Charge more tax as the unit price rises, and exempt food and clothing items under, say, $50. Buy a Timex, pay 2%, buy a Breguet, pay 20%. Buy a Prius or Scion, pay 3%, buy a Bentley, pay 30%.
Because, really, poor people do not buy truly expensive luxury items -- they can't.
Not that that'd ever happen...
A smart ass is always better than a dumb elephant!
My Quote of the Day:
"Insanity is a perfectly natural adjustment to a totally unnatural and negative environment" - R.D. Lang
etmthree @ 23:
Not a workable idea. Ask the people in Florida who built luxury boats what happened to sales and jobs when a luxury tax is selectively imposed. The auto companies rely on high end models for most of their profits (when they're making profits). Taxing this end of the market will kill jobs. It is better tax policy to got with a flat percentage and more equitable.
I find it quite taxing to listen to these religious boobs. Wouldn't it be fair to tax them back?
What if we just taxed people who professed to believe in 'god'. Right now, that stands at about 80% of the population. As soon as my tax plan went into effect, that percentage would drop precipitously. That would be a boon, right there, cut way down on the superfluous noise level.
Then we should limit property taxes to just churches, and other religious buildings. That would get rid of a lot of churches, mosques, and temples of various sorts. They'd be converted to casinos, saloons, dance parlors, and strip joints. That, too, would be a boon.
Then we could cut corporate taxes except for those corporations owned by religions. That might eliminate all the jobs of folks who make 'love gifts', expensive personal bibles, wildly decorated beanies, and personalized prayer mats, but all those displaced workers could find jobs as craps dealers, bartenders, waitresses, dime-a-dance floozies, and strippers in the old religious buildings.
Then we should quadruple the property and business taxes on schools that teach religious stuff, to cut off the supply of future boobs.
All of which shows that, properly applied, tax structures can be a blessing to society.
Peter G @ 26:
So that explains Toyota!
If Huck thunk it,then Fuck It. Out.
19 Peter G Says: It is pretty clear from the links cited that neither of those persons have the slightest idea of what constitutes a regressive tax. The proposed flat personal tax is regressive ; ten percent is a lot to someone living on minimum wage and negligible to a person with a six figure income. A sales tax is a consumption tax is inherently non-regressive.....
Actually most economist disagree with this poster
"If households are classified by annual income, the sales tax is sharply regressive. Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000. If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. Households in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution would pay less than currently, households in the top third would pay more. Still, households at the very top would pay much less, again receiving a tax cut of about $75,000. There appears to be little sound motivation for heaping huge tax cuts on precisely the groups whose income and wealth have benefitted the most from recent events, and raising burdens significantly on others."
And, this is WHY you hear this proposal only from Republican types.
When ever a Republican talks about fixing the tax code, you can be
sure, the middle class will pay more, and the rich will pay less.
Well any candidate can say what they want, but I believe it is already to late, Goldman and Sacs confirmed today that we are in a recession. The market plunged today. Be prepared to wait in bread lines people. We have come to a point of no return.
pissed off patricia @ 10:
Sorry to hear that pop. Hope we get some much-needed rain here in Floriduh.
A national sales tax is such a bad fucking idea, I don't even know where to start!
Can we just forget this was mentioned and move on to policy discussions that might actually work without creating an under-underclass?
Salon is saying what I have been saying when I first read Huckabee's proposal. This flat tax idea is simply idiotic. It also means, that people will naturally buy less because of the increased flat tax imposed on all goods. They will only buy what is necessary and profits for businesses and tax revenue the Government takes in will soon tumble. There is also the risk that a separate, economic underground could be established. In other words, a gray market. Huckabee's plan is simply stupid and could make matter worse.
How about:
domestic food: 0%
gas, electric: 0%
rent, mortgage, house (first one only): 0%
domestic clothes: 0%
all else: 50%
I have great respect for C&L posters ( OK most ). I would appreciate feedback on my concept of a flat federal tax. How would it be if we taxed ALL income, regardless of source, at say 13%. There would be an exception for people making under some income level, say $20,000 per year. I'm not talking about taxing profit, or taxing just taxable income, I'm saying anytime anyone or any corporation receives ANY income, it is taxed off the top. There would be no loopholes, only the minimum personal income level of $20,000 which would be exempt from tax. The 13% would become part of the cost of doing business. Remember, the key would be taxing ALL income, without any loopholes. Goodbye tax lawyers.
Ruthless People @ 8:
See? This is what I like to see. No knee jerk anti republicanism, just somebody with an open mind to a good idea. Both sides need to be a bit more like this. Remember our hero Mr. Clinton co-opted every decent idea the Republicans had for eight years, perhaps his wife or Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards will do the same with this idea. The fear of losing the nanny state and welfare state in favor of getting your whole paycheck needs to fade away. Imagine the economy we'd have if we got 100% of our pay for a change? Imagine the pork that would have to be cut from the federal budget! Anyway, I appreciate reading someone with an open mind who isn't so angry for a change.
Wow, what a ridiculous criticism of Huckabee's tax break. WTF? What is with all this elephant open heart surgery talk? Sounds like 3rd grade attempts at humor...just because you don't understand it, this doesn't mean you have to belittle it.
I think everyone deep down is in favor of a tax break, no matter what they say in the open. But the question that must be asked is will this raise the standard of living for the average American? Huckabee is proposing a 23% tax on all consumables, and zero income tax and capital tax.
The answer to this question is easy to arrive at.
As a person who is thinking about starting a business, this is a great tax reform, since you will be able to implement less of your savings to start a business. What used to require $50,000 could now cost only $40,000. Of course the greater the start up costs, the greater the savings. That means more people who were previously unable to quit their jobs and go on their own are now able to. We may see more blogs, more shops, more technology start ups, and more competition. Perfect.
As a consumer, all you have to do is calculate what percentage income tax you currently pay, and subtract from this the increase in taxes on consumers goods that would occur, applicable to your state.
So for example, if you pay 35% income tax, and your state tax rate is 5%, then
35% - (23% - 5%) = 17% GAIN
In other words, this citizen will have an instant wage increase of 17% That means for every $1,000 of saved money, this person gets $170 more just by the change in tax code.
Of course, this plan by Huckabee DOES suck ass for other reasons. His plan is not as good as Paul's because Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and not increase any other tax. The government can maintain revenues in Paul's plan by simply bringing home all the troops from around the world, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars.
In particular, Huckabee's plan sucks because
1. More people will just start buying consumer goods from abroad, where the tax rate is lower. This means if Huckabee wants to protect consumers goods industries, he will have to tariff imports. In either case, the consumer is fucked. If he doesn't raise tariffs, this will hurt consumers goods industries in the US but it will help capital goods industries. This plan will thus cause short term problems, but over the long run it will bring back much of the industry we lost overseas into the US.
2. Obviously a "black market" for consumables will start. This is totally expected and will result in less revenues than the government expects. White collar tax evasion will disappear but consumer tax evasion will increase, resulting in jail time for people who bought Doc Martin shoes tax free in a back alley in Chinatown. This means government spending has to go up so that the government can hire "fingermen" to patrol stores to make sure nobody sells without paying the high tax.
In summary, nice try Huckster, but your plan is TERRIBLE.
I don't even think Huckabee thought this whole thing through.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 12:
I find it hard to believe that you two found your way to this website. You two must be a case of the monkeys randomly typing out the works of Shakespeare. If you think that the flat tax or the graduated consumption tax makes any sense or offers fairness to anyone but the rich you need to see if you can't keep banging away on the keys until you find Ron Paul's website.
A progressive tax is the only fair solution. Why? Because lower income people spend most of their income on survival. I really don't care if someone rich enough to buy a football team is griping about his taxes. He is secure, well fed and as entertained as he wants to be. He does not have Health Care Insurance because he does not need it. I weep for him, really.
JTM @ 35:
A bit harsh, don't you think? Besides it would lead to runaway inflation.
Paul in LA @ 16:
You and many others assume that if we tax the corporations that only they will suffer. This is wrong. If corporations are taxed more, then the money they have available for wages will go down, meaning wages in the economy will go down relative to overall spending (which would remain unchanged). That means that wages will go down at the same time as prices stay the same.
Also, by taxing corporations more, you reduce the funds they have available for capital goods, purchases which act to raise productivity and lower prices.
So in effect, if we tax corporations more, we are giving the average tax paying worker a double kick in the ass. First by reducing their wages outright, second by rising prices due to lower productivity. Please get out of your Marxian exploitation fetish.
JTM @ 35:
Yeah, GM is really going to support that....NOT!
Dead on arrival, SOOOO many corporations etc are going to
be against this.
Besides, if this were to go through congress, you KNOW every special
interest would get their mitts into it (I just LOVE using Mitt these
days) and it would be riddled with exceptions and giveaways...
And, as a result, government income would tumble?
Shrunk down and drowning in the bath-tub? Sound familar to
some?
Remember. ALL REPUBLICS hate the government, and want it
basically dismantled.
Cause thye trust the Free Market so much...
Like Exxon, Enron, Halliburton..
You know, THE GOOD GUYS!
I agree with the poster who said, can we instead have a LEGITAMITE
discussion on how to fix the tax code, instead of these loony libertarian
type of ideas?
STEVEinSC @ 39:
Well, Mr. paul favors NO income tax OR any kind of replacement tax. This scares you...why?
Drew @ 42:
What happens IF we tax the corporations?
Enron, in its whole existence never paid a dime. Neither does Haliburton.
Puleez People! All this flat tax no loopholes no exemptions would put lawyers out of business. And who is Congress (remember Them?) run by? Oh yeah,RePug presidents don't need no stinkin Congress. Silly Me.
Mike Huckabee uses "sanctity of life" lingo to usher in a Boortzian hell
SamDog @ 43:
Taxes actually pay for things.
I can't afford to hire my own Police Officer or run down to Fire Hut and rent a truck, some hose, ladders and a few stock clerks when my house is on FIRE!
JTM @ 35:
Then you will be hurting economic growth in the private sector, you know jobs, ipods, etc...
David Hawes @ 45:
I'm not saying it would ever be implemented. I'm just wondering hypothetically if my idea has any merit from a practical and fairness perspective, regardless of the realistic chance of it being put in place considering the huge resistance it would meet from the firmly entrenched.
DiggyG @ 3:
After tax discounts, rebates and writeoffs? ZERO.
Whoa. A senior official at the Office of the Comptrolller of the Currency told me a few years ago that the OCC did a secret four-year exhaustive study about the flat tax idea, and the effect on the economy. Guess what? Turns out that a flat tax (at that time ) of 10% for every single earning above $20,000, head-of-household earning above $25,000, small business, and large corporation, was deemed sufficient to get rid of the deficit (at that time) within three years. As it was relayed to me, it would even say to the drug dealers: pay up. The study found that this worked with no deductions. Flat 10% tax in this scenario. Would produce an astounding surplus within five years. 10% of every dollar you earn goes into the kitty, whether personal small biz or large corp. Guy told me that this method would also introduce a social taboo against NOT paying your taxes, which the OCC examined as well.
Why wasn't it implemented? H&R Block, the tax lawyers -- and get this! -- the IRS. Would put them out of business. They fought hard to bury the report, the results, its very existence. Did you ever hear about it? I didn't. Guy told me that the OCC study was one of the most exhaustive they ever produced. He said the computer efficiency of simply polling every SSN and TIN for income earned and tax due would simplify the Code spectacularly.
Think of this. In one year. Someone earning $21,000 pays $2,000. Someone earning $75 million for a Christmas bonus alone pays $7.5 million. Currently, people in the high-income bracket can pay 15% capital gains tax AFTER a gazillion deductions to the point of paying 2%-3% ultimately. Stick the dough in a foundation and you pay virtually zip.
seevee @ 49:
Ahhh.I see.Let's discuss it even tho it won't hapen. Kinda like ending the war or The Second Coming.OK. Let's do it.
Let me think - who buys stuff? That would be people who are setting up housekeeping, raising children, those who need things. We buy stuff - but we need nothing - so we could avoid taxes very easily by avoiding the Madison Avenue temptations, checking books out of the library (my biggest consumer weakness) and using up all the stuff we bought years ago. Now, if I was wealthy, I would quit buying because apparently wealthy people don't like to pay taxes (and don't really have too much to worry about in this administration). We might become really stingy. No Cheerios today - taxes are too high. Let's have a little Mac and Cheese instead of going out to dinner and paying those terrible TAXES. Obviously, I know nothing about economics, but Huckabee's ideas will hit the middle class and poor very hard indeed.
ConcernedCanuck @ 50:
This is freakin stupid, how do you think we pay for this massive government, your petty $3000 a year which you probably get back half of it?? They pay %35, %35 of 5 million is far more than you pay in decade....They rich pay the majority of taxes..
Someone earning $21,000 pays $2,000 should be Someone earning $21,000 pays $2,100. Duh.
Flat Tax? I'm okay with the current Bumpy Tax. Not perfect but seems reasonably fair.
chris @ 54:
Ummm you fergot dat der TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.Who's stupid?
chris @ 54:
Bullshit. Corporations pay squat as well. That is the most bogus line the MSM puts out, and suckers eat it up hook line and sinker.
England has VAT, NZ has VAT and they have great health care. Canada has GST and we have great health care. You guys go ballistic at the mention of taxes and you have nearly 50 million Americans without health care. Get over it.
David Hawes @ 52:
The war is never going to end? Really? Wow, that's kinda depressing.
STEVEinSC @ 39:
Spoken like some who lives in South Carolina, a low tax (and therefore low services) state. Move to NYC and pay these taxes then talk to me. In the meantime keep supporting your South Carolina democrats, who are all basically Republican lites.
chris @ 54:
Actually, Chris, the "small businesses" pay the majority of taxes now. Single-member LLCs are cited as individual 1040s. So if you have a limousine company and gross $2 million a year, you as a single-member LLS would file $2 million as your income and take biz deductions from that. It used to be that the top 1% paid the majority of taxes, but that changed when the capital gains was reduced to 15% and lower on the sliding scale until 2010.
xoites defends Constitution @ 44:
OK, Enron and Halliburton. I'll throw in Blackwater myself.
WHat about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER CORPORATIONS THAT PAY TAX? Are you suggesting that all corporations now pay zero tax? I think you needs to think this through a little more.
Your are focusing on a few trees and ignoring the forest.
The head of the GAO says this country is bankrupted.
chris @ 54:
Yes, in Fantasy Land.
Care to site some reference?
seevee @ 60:
Yes,it sure is.
The rich are Not paying for This Government-My grandchildren will.
I was once a republican. I believed in individual initiative, self-reliance, earn-it-yourself. I even went to a Barry Goldwater talk. But soon I realized the republican motto was "I've got mine and you aren't getting any of it." The individual initiative crap was exposed as lies since the rich were forever trying to stack the deck in favor of their moron progeny via inheritance scams. Junior was going to get the money no matter how stupid he or she was. Individual initiative, my ass. Monopoly yes!! The poor? Fuck them. The repukes loved Ronald Reaganhood, steal from the poor to give to the rich. A gigantic military? Yes!!! Why? Terrorists, invaders, No. The military is to guard the Banks against the poor suckers who got scammed. The Pit Bulls of discipline to keep order, security, serenity for the wealthy. And now Fair Tax! or No Death Tax! one lie and scam after another.
chris @ 6:
Yeah. It's great. 40% of 200K per year is certainly equal to 40% of 40K per year.
Drew @ 63:
The oil companies who have seen their hugest profits in history have had a huge tax cut since Bush entered office. I know many Corporations pay taxes, the question is is it enough? Is it fair?
Liberal AND Proud @ 68:
After "expenses" of course...like food and shelter.
David Hawes @ 65:
The only constant is change.
And . . . if you get your money into a foundation, you only have to spend 10% of it on public things to have access to the other 90% tax-protected. Fashion designer Willi Smith's sister ran his foundation after he died. She collected money in fund-raisers for the foundation. She bought a Central Park West penthouse in the name of the foundation. I watch her part large in LA. I can't even begin to tell you what she could do under the foundation name. She told me directly how good a deal it was, chapter and verse. And I watched her take spectacular advantage of it. You buy your house, cars, planes in the name of the foundation. Make that a "spray trust" and the income and assets can go to your heirs tax free the second before you die. But you need a Phase IV tax planner to pull this shit off.
Now think what Bill Gates is doing.
Liberal AND Proud @ 68:
Read my post at #51.
seevee @ 71:
My favorite word is Hope. The past 7 years have taxed My ability to remain Hopefull. Pun intended.
hareli @ 73:
And mine @ 36.
xoites defends Constitution @ 41:
As someone has pointed out (above, somewhere), there are counties using a VAT that don't seem to have a special problem with inflation. But if I'm missing a deeper point, please explain. I'm not as completely down on sale-tax systems as many other progressives, but I know that I'm against all versions that don't have exceptions.
What I posted was my memory for a proposal in England around 1980. I can't find it using google, but I was living there at the time and remember thinking: "50%! Are they kidding?" Some time more recently I was turned on to how high the sales-tax rate would actually have to be to keep the current level of revenue. Isn't it 57% or so? My memory for what the exceptions were is hazy, but I know it made a point of protecting several domestic industries that produced what they called "necessities" (and what evolutionary psychologists call the Three Fs, minus the third).
David Hawes @ 74:
I hear you.
hareli @ 73:
Its more of a fair thing, why should one person pay more than the other, I think people would be less likely to dodge if the tax rate was not %35!!, we have the seconded highest corp tax rate also, we give people a reason to go offshore!
Why can't we elect a smart president this time?
Ruthless People @ 61:
We pay 7% sales tax and I just got a reduction on my real estate taxes that I don't need. We are a poor state and we grind the poor down with regressive taxes. That is because we have a pack of republikkks runing this state. It is a Calvinist view that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor.
What recession? The idiots in charge will say that there is no recession (except Paul).
Look at this:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/01/10/walmart...
10,000 people applied for jobs at Walmart. Guess how positions were open? 400........
This country is deep...deep...deep doodoo....
xoites defends Constitution @ 41:
Taxes do not create inflation. The government spending money that it doesn't have creates inflation. Haven't you noticed how our government has been financing a trillion+ dollar war without raising taxes? Where do you think it is getting the money to finance this? It is getting the money by creating more of it... this is why the dollar has been falling against all the other major currencies. This is why prices of everything are going up.
Inflation is caused by the reckless creation of new money which decreases the purchasing power of the money that is already in circulation. It is a hidden tax on savings. In countries that have hyper inflation, people don't save money, they spend it as soon as they are paid because if they don't spend it immediately it will soon be nearly worthless.
hyperinflation - Zimbabwe
JTM @ 76:
Let me put it this way: I would be all for it if we started spending those tax dollars on Universal Health Care, Universal Education including college, infrastructure, Universal drug programs, full employment (of able mind and body people), cleaning up the environment, research and development of ways to stablize the global climate and cutting back on wars and war profiteering.
xoites defends Constitution @ 83:
Full employment? How are you going to achieve this? with all of those programs and high tax rate you will kill business which will put people out of work. Unless you want three people doing the job of one, you know, a government job!
DiggyG @ 3:
rich mothah fluckers dont spend money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why not put a high tax on that shit that comes from china !and a very low tax on ameican made goods! oh wait we dont make anything anymore!!!never mind!!!!!!
Well, just remember.
Anytime a Republic comes up with a really CATCHY name for
a proposal, bend over, cause it's heading your way?
Fair Tax?
Remind you of:
Clean Skies Act
Patriot Act
No Child Left Behind
Death Tax....
The hits just keep on coming from these clowns.
The Republic Party...Great at Marketing...Suck at doing....
@84
Gov't-brokered full employment is not the answer, in my book. I might be progressive, but I'm not a socialist.
As to how this relates to national health, I don't see the link at all. If you want national health, then go read Edwards' explanation of how to get there. It's fricken brilliant; beat the capitalists at their own game. If you want someone who says that they want national health, but can't see how to get there (i.e., he doesn't know how to change the current system), then watch Obama at the recent debates. If you have no interest at all in national health, maybe because you like how the insurance companies work, then don't do anything, because that's the plan of everyone else (who has more than 5% support in either party).
JTM @ 35:
JTM:
I don't know if anyone has said it yet (impatience on my part...didn't read all comments), but I'm not sure that plan will raise revenues needed to run the amount of government programs we have. Quite frankly, that's probably the idea. To be fair, though, I'm sure there's a percentage we could agree on that would raise the revenue we needed, however balancing the budget off sales taxes?! What a nightmare! The task of projecting revenue and stabilizing revenues would be practically impossible. We have trouble figuring out what happened with the economy last year, much less figuring out what it will do next year.
But putting all that aside...A sales tax will decrease buying power so substantially among lower income families and individuals even the wealthy would have to increase spending far beyond what is plausible to compensate I would think. However, without further analysis I couldn't say what would balance it out in terms of numbers. Simply put, sales taxes are regressive as all hell and even subtracting what you mentioned would place lower and some middle income Americans further back than they are now. I'm not willing to risk that.
xoites defends Constitution @ 47:
Getting rid of the IRS and cutting pork and useless govt. departments would set us back budgetwise no more than 10 years. I hardly think that would take away your cops and firemen...besides, those are state and local things anyway.
SamDog @ 90:
Those who are AFRAID of paying less federal taxes are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It's time we call things for what they are.
simon @ 2:
And who would that be I mean really the way the general public can be played still amazes me not so much now that I find voters that rally around a canidiate that uses any tricks to win ( iron my shirt, what a plant) or ( oh I have so many dreams for this country-more like corporlists)
I had this discussion with someone that you only have this choose between A or B and B is just as bad or worse than A. When I said write someone in "What that is just a wasted vote" I would rather vote my conscience and lose than vote and win because what do I win? Because then if the vote is high enough they get the idea that they have a mandate to follow their disasterous programs. And the idea that a write in would win because a write in cannot win is circlur. So, who should I vote for?
there are many countries that have a value added tax
i see no prob in having a vat, if and only if, tax breaks are again given for savings
the reason we are in the pickle we now find ourselves in is that the incentives for saving have been removed
Ever try and read the Tax code? That's Lunacy! Hucks "Fair" tax is too, just so you guys don't think that my response was in favor for it. ..... okay, very good.
Peter G @ 19:
I'm not sure a tax that would encourage saving rather than spending would sit with the US psyche. Doesn't that go against the American Dream in a way?
Incidentally, a consumption tax is indeed considered, if not strictly regressive, at least the least progressive of {consumption,income,inheritance}. Of course that doesn't include proposed exemptions etc. (that naturally make the system complicated, and open to loopholes/abuse.)
WashStateBlue @ 30:
I beg to differ. If you read my post carefully you would see that a flat personal income tax is a very bad idea. Most economists agree with this position. Only the fringe economists back a regressive flat income tax. My comments on a national sales tax are well supported by experience. In Canada the introduction of the GST has reversed the slide into debt and financed a universal health care system and a first rate educational system. Canada went from a fiscal basket case to one of the best performing economies in the G8. The national debt is shrinking every year.
Daniel @ 96:
That's why I said non-regressive and not progressive.
Two arguments I use against the Fair Tax fools:
1) If these people are so certain that "everyone" will benefit from their tax scheme, then they should have no problem inserting a binding provision into the law (with penalties) stating that if after three years not "everyone" is profiting from the Fair Tax, as claimed, then the progressive income tax will be reinstated, with those responsible for this tax scam paying double for six years the income tax rate (and no loopholes) over what they had been paying previously, and any booty they'd made off the Fair Tax in the three years it was in place will be returned to the federal treasury.
2) What happens in case the United States finds itself in all-out war like World War II ??? A consumption tax, which is all the Fair Tax is, would hardly pay for an all-out war, especially when looking at the sacrifices asked of all U.S. citizens during World War II. Rationing. Cutting back on domestic spending and consumption so that more could go to our troops fighting to the death against the Nazis, Il Duce's Italians and the Imperial Japanese. With a numbskull Fair Tax in place, we'd lose any such war before even having a chance to win it.
Of Course, the Fair Tax scam is really meant to dry up funding for all the domestic programs that neo-con Republicans really, really hate, serving essentially the same function and goal that their privatization scheme holds for Social Security. What a bunch of crooked, creepy people.
xoites defends Constitution @ 45:
Public Corporation per say (I think) should NOT be taxed. PEOPLE should be the ones that should have the tax burden and Flat tax will work if ALL income earners pay equal flat tax. In the current tax schedule, individuals who are in the TOP earning brackets pay less than those below them. The disparity lies below this brackets. That is where the unfair tax burden exist.
So example: if the flat tax rate is 10% for income earners it would be the same for all.
If I earn $1000. per week my tax would be $100 for that week's income. If I earn $10,000 in the following week my tax will be $1,000.
The tax withheld will be used for social service for ALL who participated in the our nations empoyment productivity. The rich who were fortunate have earned alot of money should NOT feel bad.....for it is the consumer of their hard labor that provided the means to their economic successes. This tax contribution is actually giving back to the community it serves and also a contribution for their share of cost in maintaining the infrasructure and secure a safe place of doing business.
Why should the public corporation be exempt from tax?
Because a public corporation is owned by the public/ stock holders that generates JOBS.
The Stock holder's ( are individuals) gain on investments should be subject to the flat tax because it IS an INCOME earned by an INDIVIDUAL through its investments.
Those that will be subject to tax should be:
A person who earned an income ( regardless if the earning came from employment, profits from self-employment or investments.)
this would include:
CEOs
Individual Investors
Employees
gambling winners.
Tax should be exempt to Corporation or an entity that generates jobs. Non-profit organizations. Inheritance tax are an unfair burden. Capital gains tax are an unfair burden and sales tax is an unfair tax buden.
Property, public utility, and users taxes are fair taxes to fund the needed administration and governing our community and public properties and security.
Taxes is designed for the unkeep and governing our nation and should not be frivilously squandered as if it was grown abundantly on trees. It is meant to be used for public interest and not for private interests AND for the betterment of our NATION as a WHOLE.
Government and taxes HAS become a tool and instrument to get to the means for personal profits at the expense of our PUBLIC treasury. THIS IS NOT RIGHT......
People in unisom are NOT going to take it anymore.....It is UNACCEPTABLE and defies the principles WE were taught and brought up to believe. This betrayal of public TRUST will be the subject of PUBLIC OUTRAGE.......
It is evidently as we see froughts of outcry and anguish throughout many of our communities, all over this nation.
seevee @ 76:
You were certainly prescient. :-)
Take a look at these tax facts:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html
xoites defends Constitution @ 48:
Ummm... you do know those services are mostly paid for by local property and sales taxes, don't you?
Taxes pay for... bridges to nowhere, I know that much. And also, debt service...
Chris @ 103:
I think you're right. People alot of times overestimate the actual amount of direct services delivered by the federal government. And in recent decades there has been a significant decrease in federal funds flowing to local governments as well. That's why your local elections are more important than national elections to you personally...I'll never understand why people don't get that.
However, there are significant expenditures only the federal government is equipped to carry out. If a consumption tax was adopted one would have to cut alot of programs and draw down a lot of our larger departments...to include Defense and State I would think. A national sales tax just doesn't provide stable revenue...however you could argue income tax doesn't as well. There's drawbacks to everything.
Mr Ranger (chuck Norris) will help Huckleberry Hound keep the parks safe from
picnic basket terrorist (Yogi)
xoites defends Constitution @ 48:
You would do well to investigate the differences between state and local taxes. As others have pointed out, your police and fire department are funded with local taxes.
Ron Paul is not for ending all taxes, he is for ending the federal income tax and this is a realistic goal if the federal government drastically cuts down on federal spending. Cutting back on the money sent to Halliburton, Blackwater, and the MIC in general would be a good thing. Ending government subsidies to oil companies would be good too. It would also be good if the american taxpayer money was spent at home and not sent to foreign nations.
STEVEinSC @ 81:
I think you missed my point all together. The poor can't afford SUVs and yachts and a lot of things the middle class buy and don't need. It seems to me a "consumption tax" would weigh more heavily on those who CONSUME IN ABUNDANCE which I don't believe are the poor. I'm not saying add this tax in ADDITION to what the poor and middle class pay already. I'm saying add a consuption tax INSTEAD OF the taxes they pay already so the burden falls more heavy on the conspicuous consumer.
On a side note, since you care so much for the poor in South Carolina, may I ask what did you do with the money saved on your real estate tax reduction that you say you didn't need? Just askin.
Thanks, that explains it very logically. I'm glad you thought this one out. With evidence and historical examples.
You people don't know your head from your ass. And making Terry Pratchett analogies doesn't make you sound any more sound. The national sales tax is only the first of many taxes that need to be instituted to make this country solvent. I would also suggest seizing the assets of all the companies that made gross profits off this war. That might start making this an even playing field.
Sorry, forgot what country I lived in. Never mind.
C&L a very important, very influential website that will stop at nothing to expose the lies and hypocrisies of...wait a minute. Will they explain that they, themselves really don't understand the issue whatsoever? I doubt it. If any of y'all are interested got to this website (www.fairtax.org), read what they have to say, and make your mind up for yourselves instead of letting others, even this very important, very influential website do the thinking for you. You're welcome.
What is with the conservatives an their pathological social thinking? Calling it Fairtax is like Clean Air Initiative. They'll do anything to get a free ride and make somebody else always pay their price of admission that gets them in the door to participate in society. What really gets my goat is that they are ceaselessly trying to portray their profound, and immoral selfishness, as a virtuous thing.
It's mentioned that enforcing a progressive sales tax rate would require some "technological advancement". There is an implication in that statement that is not explicitly mentioned: the only conceivable way to do that is to further advance the government's ability to invade the privsacy of everybody's life. How else would the government know, in real time, what tax rate to place everybody into? Only through ubiquitous surveillance and monitoring of every individual. Retinal scans tied to Total Information Awareness data bases using PROMIS software? Tax issues used as a red-herring to advance the police state.
How about a simplified tax code that has everybody pay, say, 15% of income, if they are above a minimum threshold? No deductions for anybody who pays taxes. For people earning less than the minimum threshold, taxes rates rapidly devolve to zero and then go negative for those living in poverty. Since Corporations want to think of themselves as people, they pay the same rates as people (instead of companies like, say, GE, which enjoys a huge negative tax rate despite huge profits). That would leave plenty of room for a national universal healthcare surtax similar to what Canadians pay. Things like wars would be required to be financed outside of general revenues, with temporary special excise war taxes, levied on all citizens and busniesses(might make people think twice about waging ruinous and illegal wars that are fought only to benefit corporate America and no others).
Taxes are the price we pay to participate in society and invest in its continuation. There are just ways to do that, but justice does not seem to be a concept that is dear to any conservative heart.
Comments are closed on this entry