National Sales Tax to Replace Income Tax

[Berzerker]

Has there ever been a peaceful communist revolution? Seems like y'all have a penchant for violently imposing your ideology on others.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Has there ever been a peaceful communist revolution? Seems like y'all have a penchant for violently imposing your ideology on others.

Peace after the revolution, Brotha!

edit: Peace means more than just restraint from violence.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yes, but there would be no income tax anymore.

There never was on share sales anyway.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Agathon


In most countries taxes from cigarettes and alcohol go towards fixing the problems that these things create.

I thought only a fraction of the revenues actually went to such things as treatments, cures and prevention. The UK has a tax revenue on ciggies of around £10 billion/yr compared to NHS costs due to smoking of just under £2 billion/yr - percentagewise its about 18%.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon


In most countries taxes from cigarettes and alcohol go towards fixing the problems that these things create.

So we are going to put the responsibility for fixing smoking and drinking problems on the backs of the poor? You heartless miser and your regressive, anti-poor tax schemes.

[Natalinasmpf]

Has there ever been a peaceful communist revolution?

The Internet. Its communist by nature, although many people don't realise it.

[OzzyKP]

Pff, take your revisionism elsewhere. The Internet is a tax-free, uncensored bastion of free thinking and entrepenuerism. Clearly it is libertarian in nature. The only thing missing is the guns.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Wonder who's paying Boortz? His "analysis" is full of ****.

What does he have wrong specifically?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Pff, take your revisionism elsewhere. The Internet is a tax-free, uncensored bastion of free thinking and entrepenuerism. Clearly it is libertarian in nature. The only thing missing is the guns.

The Internet will exist the way it is after the revolution. It really has nothing to do with capitalism or communism.

[Vesayen]

Keep a regressive in '04 and tax us back to the days of serfdome....

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What kind of a level do you need to replace income taxes? Also, this sort of taxes seem unfair as you place the burden on a selected group instead of having it spread through out the entire population.

This ignores the very idea of social justice as well.

So you want a flat income tax?

[MichaeltheGreat]

First, Boortz assumes that if costs decrease, sellers will instantly and completely pass those decreases on to consumers. That doesn't happen. Sellers have a goal of maximizing profits, not selling at the lowest possible price. If margins are tight and costs go down, most sellers will hold prices. If sales go down, that's not good, unless margins have gone up, then the only thing that really matters is the net. Lower sales volume can also allow for layoffs, reduced inventory and warehousing costs (more layoffs), and reduced transportation costs (more layoffs).


Second, Boortz makes the assumption that seller's costs will decrease in an amount roughly corresponding to the level of tax. Most products are a mix of processed material and labor costs, and their source materials are also a mix of materials and labor costs, right until you get back to the raw commodities in the ground, or in the cow, or whatever is the processed material's ultimate commodity source. The raw cost of commodities won't change as a result of a different method labor taxation, only the value added components. Going back to your final retail product, whatever portion of its cost that is based on raw commodity costs won't be affected at all, but that portion of the cost will still be taxed the same as the labor portion of the cost.

So you have tax on 100% of the total cost, but the potential for price reduction on only the labor-related portion of the product's cost. When you get to more complex products like automobiles, there are other cost layers - cost of capital and debt for the manufacturing facilities, inventory costs, energy costs, etc., so no matter what, direct labor costs are always a fraction of total costs.

The next problem is the idea of labor cost savings:
How would costs go down enough to offset the tax, except by lower labor costs? For payroll taxes, employers pay only two things - their matching share of FICA (social security and medicare taxes) and state and federal unemployment taxes. FICA matching share is 7.65 percent (forget about the SS tax cap, since most people make less than 88 grand per year). Federal and state unemployment run about $250-500 per year per employee, depending roughly on the company's turnover rate.

Assume unemployment taxes aren't touched by this scheme, then the only savings to the employer from the tax change is the 7.65 percent from the employer's share of FICA taxes. The rest of any "savings" will come from reducing the gross pay of employees. If people get paid less, then the net difference between pay minus income tax under the current system, and pay without tax under this new system becomes minimal.

No change in what the peasant makes, but additional tax on everything the peasant buys.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin


There never was on share sales anyway.

It's called capital gains.

And yes, I know it's on the profit from those sales, but still.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Pff, take your revisionism elsewhere. The Internet is a tax-free, uncensored bastion of free thinking and entrepenuerism. Clearly it is libertarian in nature. The only thing missing is the guns.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's called capital gains.

And yes, I know it's on the profit from those sales, but still.

Its a big difference. (That is, the removal of the old tax is negligible)

Make a 5% profit and you pay 2% of that profit in taxes under capital gains verses 40% under sales tax.