Oh great, the Republicans want a FLAT TAX

[MrFun]

pwned by JohnT

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by JohnT


You haven't been following, have you.

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.

Well, 16.17% would be more accurate

[Sava]

I'm telling you, ZOMBIE TEDDY ROOSEVELT is going to come back and beat some ass.

[Japher]

Ask yourself, WWZTD?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Well, 16.17% would be more accurate

...uh, I'm using the calculator that came with Windows?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by JohnT


...uh, I'm using the calculator that came with Windows?

Is it not a proper ground to raise a $1M claim against Bill ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin
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.

Do you actually think rich people are not going to buy yachts because there is a tax on them?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Darius871

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.

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.

I'm not sure you've established how much simpler it would be. Going back to your previous example of a man buying a pair of pants - no tax. Is that equally applicable to a pair of $500 Armani pants as it is to a $20 pair of pants from Walmart? Are all cars subject to the luxury tax, or is there some exemption for economy cars? How about used cars? I used to live by a store that flew in bread from France each morning - yours for only $60 a loaf. Is this bread tax exempt, or is it only certain brands/price points where this is applicable? What about something like power tools - workplace necessity or expensive hobby? Are cheap reading glasses tax exempt but more expensive ones aren't? Where do you draw the line?

As for freely choosing your level of taxation, how does that work, practically speaking? Does the military cost less to maintain if people buy less luxury items? Do police take a pay cut if there aren't enough Corvettes sold that year?

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.

OK, so you're doing away with income taxes altogether. How much does that sales tax on luxury items only have to be now? And I think you're ignoring the value people put on certain things. Just because you can statistically afford something doesn't mean that you're willing to pay the price. I make a good income and drive a nice car. But if I took home another $10k, it doesn't mean I would be willing to pay another $10k for my car, or even another $5k.

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.

And how are you going to pay for this increased border security when you've done away with income tax and taxes on the bulk of consumption?

[Japher]

Do you actually think rich people are not going to buy yachts because there is a tax on them?

When Clinton(?) raised the luxury taxes a few years back most of the yacht builders in the US closed shop.

The rich may still buy them, but they will be made elsewhere. Also, the rich may not buy as many.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
The other reason I like the idea is it allows individuals to freely choose their own levels of taxation.

More imaginary freedoms for poor people.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do you actually think rich people are not going to buy yachts because there is a tax on them?

Do you actually think that if the price of yachts went up, say, 30%, demand for them would be completely unchanged?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher


When Clinton(?) raised the luxury taxes a few years back most of the yacht builders in the US closed shop.

The rich may still buy them, but they will be made elsewhere. Also, the rich may not buy as many.

Cry me a river. Most people seem to make it through the 'crisis.'

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Do you actually think that if the price of yachts went up, say, 30%, demand for them would be completely unchanged?

Demand might even go up, because they become more exclusive. Yachts are the perfect good to tax.

[Japher]

Sorry.. it was Bush.

Oh, and Kid, I could careless if some one can't afford a yacht. All I was doing was answering your question:

Do you actually think rich people are not going to buy yachts because there is a tax on them?

and the answer is yes, drastically. Luxury tax destroyed an industry.

[Kidlicious]

You didn't say rich people bought less yachts at the higher price. They just bought imports.