Tweet
Also, poor people work in the industries that produce goods for rich people. Its all well and good only taxing things like yachts, but when the poor labourers who build the yachts are sacked through reduced demand they won't thank you for it. 
-
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry. -
Capitalism is unfair to the rich so they should have to pay less taxes.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Like what, besides clothing, toiletries, rent, utilities, healthcare, and school supplies? Anything else is an unnecessary luxury AFAICS. Someone making minimum wage while supporting a wife and two children shouldn't piss money away on anything other than the basics I've listed, and f*** him if he does.[SIZE=1]Even if you exempt necessities, people still have to buy a lot of things that aren't food.
Based on past discussions of this topic on another forum I'm sure the automatic response to this will be "Aha! You've just made it complicated and defeated the original purpose of a sales tax, which was supposed to be simplicity." I don't see how this is so.
Here's some simplicity for you:
Man buying white bread, pants, and toothbrush = not taxed.
Man buying boombox, palm pilot, and Cadillac = heavily taxed.
How on earth does this benefit the rich?Last edited by Darius871; November 9, 2004, 12:24.Comment
-
More and more a computer with internet access is a necessary item to be a member of a modern society. Certainly a radio or television is important, or at least some method of getting news in necessary.
The fact is that the line between necessary items and luxuries is pretty fuzzy.
-Drachasor"If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work." - Barack ObamaComment
-
I think a better question is how does this benefit anybody? Even the rich will buy the necessities, so that's going to be by far the largest chunk of consumption right there. How much of a tax do you need on luxury items then? And don't you think that if buying a Ford Explorer just got 30+% more expensive, alot fewer of them would be sold?Originally posted by Darius871
Like what, besides clothing, toiletries, rent, utilities, healthcare, and school supplies? Anything else is an unnecessary luxury AFAICS. Someone making minimum wage while supporting a wife and two children shouldn't piss money away on anything other than the basics I've listed.
Based on past discussions of this topic on another forum I'm sure the automatic response to this will be "Aha! You've just made it complicated and defeated the original purpose of a sales tax, which was supposed to be simplicity." I don't see how this is so.
Here's some simplicity for you:
Man buying white bread, pants, and toothbrush = not taxed.
Man buying boombox, palm pilot, and Cadillac = heavily taxed.
How on earth does this benefit the rich?
If you work in enough exemptions, and factor in lost demand from high taxes on everything else, how can you possibly raise enough revenue?"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
A problem that you would have to be wary of is smuggling and black market goods from Canada, as well as excessive legal importing due to the difference in tax codes.Originally posted by Darius871
Like what, besides clothing, toiletries, rent, utilities, healthcare, and school supplies? Anything else is an unnecessary luxury AFAICS.
Based on past discussions of this topic on another forum I'm sure the automatic response to this will be "Aha! You've just made it complicated and defeated the original purpose of a sales tax, which was supposed to be simplicity." I don't see how this is so.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
If a person earning only $17,000 will pay $765 in income taxes, then someone earning, say, $255,000 would only pay $11,475. $765 divided by $17,000 = .045 which is 4.5 percent of income. $255,000 multiplied by .045 is $11,475. $11,475 in taxes for someone earning $255,000 is deplorably low.Originally posted by JohnT
Can you explain how you drew that conclusion from the post you quoted?
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
Great point. Personally I think only newspapers, other periodicals, and books should be exempted because A) radio, television, and computers are used for mindless entertainment more often than to be an informed citizen B) it's in the state's interest to encourage reading and C) electronics are too huge of a revenue source to exempt without increasing taxes on other luxuries far too drastically.Originally posted by Drachasor
More and more a computer with internet access is a necessary item to be a member of a modern society. Certainly a radio or television is important, or at least some method of getting news in necessary.
The fact is that the line between necessary items and luxuries is pretty fuzzy.
However that's just MHO, and I'd be happy with letting the legislators mapping out exemptions draw the line in this gray area. (Not to say that this isn't pure mental masturbation; we both know this'll never happen for obvious reasons.)
The most obvious benefit of it is the extreme simplicity compared to the current tax code. The other is that limiting taxation only to luxuries benefits the poor and middle class.Originally posted by Kontiki
I think a better question is how does this benefit anybody?
The other reason I like the idea is it allows individuals to freely choose their own levels of taxation. Think of it this way: today the only way a single person with no dependents can avoid paying taxes is by making less than ~$8,000 a year IIRC. If there were a national sales tax with necessity exemptions, anyone with any income can alter his/her lifestyle and not have to pay a dime, if they so choose.
You ignore the fact that the person buying that Explorer would have thousands upon thousands more dollars in his/her pocket from not having to pay income taxes.Originally posted by Kontiki
How much of a tax do you need on luxury items then? And don't you think that if buying a Ford Explorer just got 30+% more expensive, alot fewer of them would be sold?
That's the best argument against it I've ever heard, but I guess one could say the necessary increase in border security wouldn't damage the economy too much. As for 'legal importing' I don't know what you mean; if you go on the internet and order a product from Timbuktu it'd be taxed at the same rate as here.Originally posted by Dauphin
A problem that you would have to be wary of is smuggling and black market goods from Canada, as well as excessive legal importing due to the difference in tax codes.Last edited by Darius871; November 9, 2004, 13:14.Comment
-
Great point. Personally I think only newspapers, other periodicals, and books should be exempted because A) radio, television, and computers are used for mindless entertainment more often than to be an informed citizen B) it's in the state's interest to encourage reading and C) electronics are too huge of a revenue source to exempt without increasing taxes on other luxuries far too drastically.
A: And newspapers, periodicals and books are not chiefly used for mindless entertainment?
B: Everybody says this. Unfortunately, no-one ever gave much in the way of justification, so I remain skeptical.
C: Pragmatic but true. I don't want to know how much I've paid in VAT on electronics over the last few years ...Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
The greatest virtues of a national sales taxe are :
- psychologically painless since it is paid during a non fiscal act;
- the considerable return for the state;
- the very low cost of collection;
- and last but least, it is the only way to squeeze the poors who otherwise are extremely reluctant to pay taxes. In addition, the national sales taxe bring so much money to the state that it makes possible for the state to divert a small portion in order to distribute some generous allowances toward the most noisy bastards. This is so true that all leftist european governements are working this mine.
Statistical anomaly.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.Comment
-
I'm not against it per se, I just like to have it thought through to possible conclusions.Originally posted by Darius871
That's the best argument against it I've ever heard, but I guess one could say the necessary increase in border security wouldn't damage the economy too much. As for 'legal importing' I don't know what you mean; if you go on the internet and order a product from Timbuktu it'd be taxed at the same rate as here.
By legal importing I mean if there are any agreements between the US and Canada were sales tax is not imposed on an import. I use as the basis of my example the fact that:
1) VAT is not charged on cross border imports/exports within the EU. So equivalently it can lead to increased traffic of goods between the US and Canada, legally avoiding taxes due, if duty is exempted on commercial imports.
2) There are exemptions limits on goods brought in if they are for personal use. The UK governments loses hundreds of millions of pounds in duty from people booze cruising - going across to the continent to buy alcohol, tobacco, and other items and bring them back. A similar phenomemon could exist in the US with people travelling to Canada to stock up on goods, avoiding sales tax.
If there are no applicable tariff agreements its moot, but I'm just mentioning it in case such agreements are ever brought in through NAFTA.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
The problem with that is that the Television, Computer, and other sources are part of how we knit ourselves together as a society. When you start getting rid of all of the things that connect us together, you start eroding national unity and connections. These sources give everyone access to similar frames of reference, and that is a very, very important thing.Originally posted by Darius871
Great point. Personally I think only newspapers, other periodicals, and books should be exempted because A) radio, television, and computers are used for mindless entertainment more often than to be an informed citizen B) it's in the state's interest to encourage reading and C) electronics are too huge of a revenue source to exempt without increasing taxes on other luxuries far too drastically.
Hence a National Sales Tax as the only means of revenue is very, very flawed imho. You just won't be able to make it fair. A flat income tax with exemptions is better, but you'd still need a ton of exemptions to still be fair, and even then you might not be. Of course the exemptions basically make the system bracketed in essence, so it isn't all that much different from how it is now; it might make it easier to fill out the forms though.
Now, federally funded programs that let you fill out your tax info online and get free software that helps you fill out your taxes were be much, much more helpful.
-Drachasor"If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work." - Barack ObamaComment
-
I actually agree with Drachasor!?Hence a National Sales Tax as the only means of revenue is very, very flawed imho
How about some sort of cross between a Flat Tax and a Consumption Tax?Comment
-
You haven't been following, have you.Originally posted by MrFun
If a person earning only $17,000 will pay $765 in income taxes, then someone earning, say, $255,000 would only pay $11,475. $765 divided by $17,000 = .045 which is 4.5 percent of income. $255,000 multiplied by .045 is $11,475. $11,475 in taxes for someone earning $255,000 is deplorably low.
The flat tax proposal by Steve Forbes allowed a $12,500 deduction per individual, $6,000 per child, and a 17% tax rate.
Therefore, a person, filing as single, making $255,000 would pay the following:
255,000
-12,500
-----------
242,500
*.17
-----------
$41,225
or 16.6% of his earnings.Comment
-
here's a nice little calculator for some of the plans:
Comment
Comment