THE US Tax Thread (merged)

by **JoeW** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 15:29:51

U. S. taxpayers who prefer consumption tax: please respond
This should be based on your 2004 federal tax return. Divide "tax you owe" by your Gross Income and multiply by 100%. (If you can't do this, you probably shouldn't be advocating changes in tax policy).

by **JoeW** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 16:08:22

It is starting to look like the consumption tax advocates are all bark and no bite...?

by **Tyler_JC** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 16:14:31

The average person would pay less in taxes under a consumption tax than under the current system. Anyone who said under 20% is crazy. The lowest tax bracket is 10% and payroll taxes are 12.4%. Unless you don't work or have a team of accountants, it is nearly impossible to pay less than 20% of income to the federal government.

Also, we pay property taxes and state income taxes. I know that those taxes aren't included in your poll, but they do take a bite.

by **JoeW** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 16:18:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he average person would pay less in taxes under a consumption tax than under the current system. Anyone who said under 20% is crazy. The lowest tax bracket is 10% and payroll taxes are 12.4%. Unless you don't work or have a team of accountants, it is nearly impossible to pay less than 20% of income to the federal government.

Also, we pay property taxes and state income taxes. I know that those taxes aren't included in your poll, but they do take a bite.

by **JoeW** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 16:31:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
Also, we pay property taxes and state income taxes. I know that those taxes aren't included in your poll, but they do take a bite.

by **rerere** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 16:53:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', 'I')t is starting to look like the consumption tax advocates are all bark and no bite...?

by **pea-jay** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 19:02:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless you don't work or have a team of accountants, it is nearly impossible to pay less than 20% of income to the federal government

by **Kingcoal** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 19:20:11

There is no law requiring the government to treat FICA taxes different from any other taxes. As a matter of fact, when the "trust fund" is full, your FICA taxes go to other things. All these taxes on income are the same thing: income taxes!

A consumption tax would allow people to control how much taxes they pay by controlling their consumption. People who buy more stuff will pay more in taxes. What's wrong with that? Most plans include exceptions for groceries, heating fuels, etc.

If a consumption tax is proposed without liquidating the income tax, watch out! That is the road to tax death. Remember, income taxes always go up automatically because of inflation.

by **ECM** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 19:40:01

The sales tax used in most areas is a consumption tax. The VAT tax used in Europe I believe is consumption based as well. I know people that make massive amounts of money and pay no income taxes and have ways of getting around or reducing the social security and medicare taxes. My parents paid 33% of their gross earnings to federal and state taxes last year and were told that people making 10X what they made often paid far less then they did in total. I feel the more resources you use the more tax you should pay. A flat tax would encourage people to save.

The tax system is designed by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy. I doubt it will ever change as an accountant once told me it would cause a loss of at least 3 million jobs. That money could be used to raise production and create replacement jobs. Most accounting and tax jobs are a waste with no truly constructive purpose.

by **rerere** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 19:42:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', ' ')will have to pay MORE taxes on goods and services.

by **Ayoob_Reloaded** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 20:53:46

How about a 1% tax on assets for everyone and everything, no exceptions?

by **Tyler_JC** » Fri 04 Mar 2005, 20:56:50

I'm fine with that. The current system is messed up and in need of repair.

by **Bytesmiths** » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 00:46:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A')nyone who said under 20% is crazy.

by **k_semler** » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 01:06:59

Isn't a "consumption tax" just a glororied name for a federal sales tax? And unless the 16th ammendment were to be repealed, (which would not happen due to corrupt politicians), what is the difference between a "consumption tax" and a GVT? If this passes, without repealing the 16th ammendment, we would be just faced with even more taxation with no benifit proportional to the funds invested, (if tax is now $100 and goes up to $150, I expect to see a 50% increase in benifits to the average citizen). there is also the issue of I WORK FOR MY SUSTINANCE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT"S COFFERS, so what benifit would an increase in taxes have for me? Don't try to sell me "universal heath care", or "free" higher education", because nothing is free, and if you cannot afford something, then you have no legitimate complaint because you do not have it. Hell, I have 2 cavities in my mouth that hurt like a bitch every so often, but I just take 800 MG Ibprofien, (obtained w/o a perscription), because I cannot afford the $~700 to get the problem fixed. I can't afford to get it fixed, so I just deal with the problem. Nobody deserves anything for free.

by **Tyler_JC** » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 10:43:42

There might still be an income tax, but it would be MUCH lower. Otherwise I'd call it double taxation and I would be forced to bitch about it.

by **TWilliam** » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 18:10:59

Ok... just off the top of my head.

A consumption tax on the following (in no specific order):

1) Anything not a necessity. Meaning anything other than food, water, shelter, clothing or medicine. 'Food' meaning that which is generally supportive of human health, not Cheetos, Twinkies, Coca-Cola, "convenience foods" and such. Also a limit on square footage per family member regarding 'shelter'. A 5000+ square foot home for two adults and two kids is not a "necessity". Tho' I suppose such a limit might be foregone if the increased utility consumption was taxed instead.

2) Anything produced non-locally, including items in 1). If it's more than (say) a six hour drive away, it's non-local.

3) Fuel consumption beyond a certain base level.

Some ideas anyway...

by **pea-jay** » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 20:15:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'O')k... just off the top of my head.

A consumption tax on the following (in no specific order):

1) Anything not a necessity. Meaning anything other than food, water, shelter, clothing or medicine. 'Food' meaning that which is generally supportive of human health, not Cheetos, Twinkies, Coca-Cola, "convenience foods" and such. Also a limit on square footage per family member regarding 'shelter'. A 5000+ square foot home for two adults and two kids is not a "necessity". Tho' I suppose such a limit might be foregone if the increased utility consumption was taxed instead.

2) Anything produced non-locally, including items in 1). If it's more than (say) a six hour drive away, it's non-local.

3) Fuel consumption beyond a certain base level.

Some ideas anyway...

by **TWilliam** » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 20:36:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'W')ait a second...I thought you guys wanted a SIMPLE system? Non-nutricious foods? Measuring distances for local production determination? Even exempting all clothing and food isn't easy.

by **rerere** » Sun 06 Mar 2005, 14:38:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', 'I')t is starting to look like the consumption tax advocates are all bark and no bite...?

by **Bytesmiths** » Sun 06 Mar 2005, 15:05:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', 'I') am trying to figure out why so many people responded to the CNN.com poll indicating that they preferred the flat consumption tax to the current graduated income tax.

THE US Tax Thread (merged)

Your current federal tax (as a percentage)?

THE US Tax Thread (merged)

Who is online