Tax Reform Thread

[giblets]

Don't twist things around. They are deferred consumption when people save for specific reasons like college funds or retirement. However rich people tend to save with no intention of ever spending the money. Now, is that explaination too difficult for you to figure out by yourself. Did you really need someone to explain that to you?

Then they give it to someone else when they die, and they can spend it. Making it deferred consumption. Or if they also keep it until they die they give it to someone else.

If that bothers you, the solution is inheritance tax. That way people who have "no intention of ever spending the money" are taxed when they pass it on to someone else. No need to tax income from investments, which punishes people who do plan on spending the money.

[Kidlicious]

Then they give it to someone else when they die, and they can spend it. Making it deferred consumption.

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

If that bothers you, the solution is inheritance tax.

And another solution is the flat tax. What does this have to do with the first lie?

No need to tax income from investments, which punishes people who do plan on spending the money.

No one likes taxes, but they pay the bills.

[giblets]

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

deferred = postponed or delayed
consumption = spending money on goods or services
saving money means it doesn't get spent right away, but instead the spending is postponed, in other words "deferred consumption"

So if I earn some money, but decide to keep it until I die and pass it on to someone else, and they spend it, it is deferred consumption.

No one likes taxes, but they pay the bills.

Some taxes are worse than others.

Maybe that's why we have a tax reform thread.

[Drake Tungsten]

All these newbies are so cute. They're almost making me nostalgic for a time when I didn't know that talking to Kiddy was a complete waste of time.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Since when are root canals covered by regular health insurance?

They aren't.

[GePap]

Visits to the dentist aren't financial risk.

From personal experience I can say that yes, some trips to the dentist can be a financial risk - or at least, be very costly, cause for most people in the US regular health insurance does not cover dental procedures, and some of those can be quite costly.

I am still paying off the $2300 I had to pay for a root canal and crown from a problem that I had to fix prior to my dental insurance kicking in....

[korn469]

I have dental insurance through the army (tricare dental) and my wife started her root canal two weeks ago. The original dentist couldn't complete the root canal and now we have to see an endontist this week to complete the proceedure who's out of network because there isn't a participating endontist within 200 miles of me. The root canal, crown, and three fillings is going to cost me 1500 dollars out of pocket (not counting monthly premiums) and exceed the yearly total the insurance company will pay. I try to save, and although I will be able to pay for the proceedure out of my savings it will pretty much kill my emergency fund.

To put this in perspective, we just had a baby in January and he came early via c section because my wife had preeclampsia/pih. The total out of pocket cost for the entire pregnancy was 0 through tricare prime.

EDIT:

EDIT2: changed income tax to sales tax

By the way I don't see any advantage of a VAT tax, or why it's so needed now. Also how would the government implement the VAT tax without hurting state sales tax revenues? In Louisiana people already pay nearly 10% in sales tax, if you added a high VAT tax on top of that, buying anything would be pretty outrageous.

[giblets]

By the way I don't see any advantage of a VAT tax, or why it's so needed now. Also how would the government implement the VAT tax without hurting state income tax revenues? In Louisiana people already pay nearly 10% in income tax, if you added a high VAT tax on top of that, buying anything would be pretty outrageous.

You mean sales tax, right? And yes, that's a good point.

[DinoDoc]

In Louisiana people already pay nearly 10% in income tax, if you added a high VAT tax on top of that, buying anything would be pretty outrageous.

European levels of entitlement demand European levels of taxation.

[Drake Tungsten]

The total out of pocket cost for the entire pregnancy was 0 through tricare prime.

[KrazyHorse]

You mean sales tax, right? And yes, that's a good point.

Not really.

Why is it "outrageous" to pay high sales taxes, but not high income taxes?

I pay close to 40% of my salary in income taxes. That's equivalent to a 65% sales tax or so.

[korn469]

The total out of pocket cost for the entire pregnancy was 0 through tricare prime.

Army health care is great for the families, but for the soldiers it's more like drink water, walk it out, suck it up, and if it's really bad take ibuprofen 800 mg.

[giblets]

Not really.

Why is it "outrageous" to pay high sales taxes, but not high income taxes?

I pay close to 40% of my salary in income taxes. That's equivalent to a 65% sales tax or so.

I feel like a high sales tax would be harder to enforce than a high income tax, but I don't actually know if that's the case.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why is it "outrageous" to pay high sales taxes, but not high income taxes?

I'd prefer a high sales tax. At least I have some control over how much I end up paying in sales tax.

I feel like a high sales tax would be harder to enforce than a high income tax, but I don't actually know if that's the case.

Easier enforcement is one reason a VAT is superior to a sales tax.

[korn469]

The total out of pocket cost for the entire pregnancy was 0 through tricare prime.

Not really.

Why is it "outrageous" to pay high sales taxes, but not high income taxes?

I pay close to 40% of my salary in income taxes. That's equivalent to a 65% sales tax or so.

I'm fairly certain that a 65% tax on bit ticket items like cars, houses, factories, etc. would cause a large amount of delayed consumption.