Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree15Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 17th, 2017, 09:55 AM   #11
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Right to left, equivocating? Really?
Did you bother to read what was proposed?
What specific fault did you find with a proposal for a general sales tax of 4.55% to replace reduction of taxes upon wages and payrolls from 15.3% to 6.2%?
Respectfully, Supposn
Yes I did! But you should know red flags go up immediately when you begin a proposal with:"Sales taxes are not particularly regressive."
Your link is just to another thread you started here, not outside source material. And in that post, I can't directly address a declarative statement like:"FICA and SECA are our most regressive federal taxes.
"
without knowing how many lower income Americans qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit...which as I recall was major part of Mitt Romney's stupid pushback against the Occupy movements focus on the top 1% of income earners--'47% of the American public are TAKERS' and that was the end of his useless campaign in 2012!

You need to explain how reducing "taxes upon wages and payrolls from 15.3% to 6.2%" will benefit the majority of people when there is no breakdown along income, and how adding a national sales tax to that aggregate 6.2% payroll taxes will benefit most people. It should be obvious that the tax share and discretionary income levels vary at each income demographic.

Besides, as your other post declares-- those taxes are applied to the two institutions the corporate rightwing are trying to demolish: Medicare and Social Security. How many..especially aging Americans are going to get talked into rolling the dice and risking it on the take from a national sales tax after the past three decades of globalization and supply side economics theory?

This other cryptic comment bothers me:"Social Security and Medicare are net reducers of poverty; they're net beneficial to our economy. ." If a program reduces poverty, it's a benefit to the economy! That should be plain and simple and something rightwingers can't deny, since reducing the poverty of the lower classes will give them more spending power and capacity to contribute to circulation of money in the economy...which we are told by many economists of the past few decades is shrinking and leading to market focus on high income earners alone.
"All individuals rather than only employees should more fully contribute to funding those programs" Why? Another doctrinal declaration for no good reason. How many employers are poor? I know they claim to be and will even cite all the deductions their accountants can find to put a lower number on an income statement, but as much as they threaten to go out of business if they have to pay for something...rather than pocketing the money themselves, they stay where they are if they're local, while larger businesses take advantage of the political advantages of the last three decades which allow a company to take bids from competing states offering long tax deferments of many years, free land and even covering the costs of new building, or they just go overseas and take advantage of this wonderful idea of "Free Trade," which has allowed capital to move freely across borders and enrich the investors and owners at everyone else's expense...including the impoverished third world nations where the sweatshops are set up!

And with all that, I haven't arrived at my main objection to using sales taxes to collect revenues: they are the most expensive and inefficient tax collection system! As we learned in Canada when our GST was set up, an army of thousands of bureaucrats have to be employed to set up and monitor the system, while the underground economy grows as service providers and clients often choose a 15% discount over paying the sales taxes!

Quote:
Sales and excise taxes are the most regressive element in most state and local tax systems. Sales taxes inevi*tably take a larger share of income from low- and middle-income families than from rich families because sales taxes are levied at a flat rate and spending as a share of income falls as income rises. Thus, while a flat-rate general sales tax may appear on its face to be neither progressive nor regressive, that is not its practical impact. Unlike an income tax, which generally applies to most income, the sales tax applies only to spent income and exempts saved income. Since high earners are able to save a much larger share of their incomes than middle-income families — and since the poor can rarely save at all — the tax is inherently regressive.
Quote:
Sales taxes are usually calculated as a percentage of the price of a fairly broad base of taxable items. Excise taxes, by contrast, are imposed on a small number of goods, typically ones for which demand has a practi*cal per-person maximum (for example, one can only use so much gasoline). Thus, wealthy people don’t keep buying more of these goods as their income increases. Moreover, excise taxes are typically based on volume rather than price — per gallon, per pack and so forth. Thus better-off people pay the same abso*lute tax on an expensive premium beer as low-income families pay on a run-of-the-mill variety. As a result, excise taxes are usually the most regressive kind of tax.
https://itep.org/whopays/#Sales%20&%20Excise%20Taxes

Last edited by right to left; October 17th, 2017 at 10:00 AM.
right to left is offline  
Old October 17th, 2017, 11:43 AM   #12
Banned
 
Hashtag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upside Down
Posts: 714
Excellent ideas.

Quote:
Every ideologically driven citizen has one law that he would like to see enacted. The trouble is, there is no agreement about which law it should be.

We all have our favorite hobby horse, our recommended silver bullet.

I suggested two laws on Lew Rockwell’s site back in May 2000. It was the first article by me that he posted. Since then, he has posted about 1,700 more. The site no longer numbers them, so I am not sure how many. The article was titled, “Two Teensy-Weensy Legal Reforms.”

Every American visitor to this website probably has a cabinet-level agency that he thinks should be abolished first. I dream such dreams, too. But as I grow older, I become less utopian. So, I’m going to recommend two minor technical revisions of the tax code.
Repeal withholding on all federal income taxes.

Move the date that federal taxes are due to the first Monday of November.

Federal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.
You can read my arguments here.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/...e-our-liberty/
Hashtag is offline  
Old May 25th, 2018, 05:48 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: usa
Posts: 200
all personal taxes should be abolished. Just cut govt services until a lottery funds them. Pay out a lot less to any one individual, but pay out PLENTY to many more winners, and you'll have LOTS more players. Get rid of the Fed reserve, print the money directly. Get rid of 90% of the miilitary, the illegals, and the dope laws. Those last three moves would save us 2 TRILLION $ a year!

why let one guy win 100 million, instead of 1000 guys win 100k? A clear 100k will retire you, if you know anything. If you dont know anything, why should we care if you survive or not? With 1000x greater odds of a significant win, you'll get at least 10 as many people playing, and willing to spend a lot more on the tickets, too

Stop all foreign aid. Stop welfare, corporate and private. Get rid of 90% of govt. and the voluntary tax imposed by the lottery WILL pay for things. Much of govt can be privatized, like the enforcement of contracts, issuing of licenses, etc. Those licenses can be taxed a lot more heavily than they are, when there's no SS or income tax being paid. People VOLUNTARILY want a license, so they'll pay. Simple. No pay, no license. If people do biz with an un-licensed person, they have no legal recourse if the get screwed. Tough stuff, pay attention to with whom you are dealing and take your own risks.

Just renounce debt to any country that we saved or defended since the ww's. Get the $ back on a gold/silver standard. Even if it means that gold is $10,000 an oz, at least there will be a standard, and a limit on govt borrowing/printing.
ulald is offline  
Old May 25th, 2018, 08:10 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulald View Post
all personal taxes should be abolished. Just cut govt services until a lottery funds them. ... Get rid of the Fed reserve, print the money directly. Get rid of 90% of the miilitary, the illegals, and the dope laws. Those last three moves would save us 2 TRILLION $ a year! ...

...
Stop all foreign aid. Stop welfare, corporate and private. Get rid of 90% of govt. and the voluntary tax imposed by the lottery WILL pay for things. ...
Ulald, I left out much of your post because it was too many different topics to deal with in a single response. I'm considering your entire post.
By “just cut govt services”, are you suggesting just cut the services you disapprove of, and/or the services that do not particularly benefit you, and/or the services for which you do not perceive the benefit of, and/or benefits that may in time arise, but they ain't here now?

It would have been unfeasible to entirely or substantially fund a major national government with only a national lottery during simpler times; it's certainly less feasible now.

The tone of your post leads me to presume you voted for Donald Trump. Government offices are occupied by those we elected. Similar to a boy swinging the stick in hope of breaking his birthday Pinata, our president is blindly swinging his magic wand. Mexican children seek outflowing of candy, our nation seeks solutions to our national conundrums. Thus far, President Trump has not succeeded.

Regarding President Trump's tariffs, refer to the thread:
President Trump's Tariffs

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old May 26th, 2018, 12:22 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulald View Post
all personal taxes should be abolished. Just cut govt services until a lottery funds them. … Get rid of the Fed reserve, print the money directly. … Get the $ back on a gold/silver standard. Even if it means that gold is $10,000 an oz, at least there will be a standard, and a limit on govt borrowing/printing.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ulald, within post #6 of the thread:
The Keynesians Stole The Jobs , I responded to SabCat and discussed some aspects of the U.S. federal reserve system and particularly the function of the federal reserve board. I won't clutter this thread by quoting that post.

The discussion touches upon comparatively few people (that were never elected to public office, or even appointed by those who were elected), but have enormous influence and leverage over USA's and other nations' economies.
Those clowns drove our economy down to its knees.

The federal government loaned great sums of money to rescue Chrysler, then General Motors, then Ford asked for a loan so as not to be at a competitive disadvantage to Chrysler and GM. In all of these cases, the money was repaid and jobs were saved. But we can logically conclude that this is not good sustainable policy. It's reasonable to assume that if we do this often enough, eventually our government, and our taxpayers will encounter the incidence of public money not being repaid to the public.

Since Theodore Roosevelt spoke of “Malefactors of Great Wealth” many presidents and members of Congress have been struggling against the concept of enterprises that are immune to failure because the government cannot permit failure of an enterprise that's “too big to fail”.
The citizens cannot be defended from such giant corporations unless it's empowered to enforce the public's rights. The “small government” that conservatives hold up as the ideal, is the government that's subservient to great international corporations. That's the government that you're advocating?

If those corporations cannot always demand their prerogatives, they have been able to prevent our population from receiving what should be the public's aggregate rights. It's been said, “We all do better when we all do better”. In those cases, even the largest corporations do better than otherwise.

I share many of Alan Greenspan's views; I'm an advocate of free enterprise, independent participants with equitable opportunity to compete within equitable marketplaces. Unlike Greenspan, I'm not an advocate of pure free trade; wage scales are not equitable throughout the world. Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation's domestic production and they drag upon their nations numbers of jobs.

We had the gold standard, and our citizens were poorer for it. I'm not confident our federal reserve board is an improvement, but it certainly has not been worse.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old May 26th, 2018, 12:27 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,136
Want a flat tax that's not regressive, tax property, all property, so the people that own the most pay the most, and the people who own next to nothing, pay next to nothing.
goober is offline  
Old May 26th, 2018, 12:38 PM   #17
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Want a flat tax that's not regressive, tax property, all property, so the people that own the most pay the most, and the people who own next to nothing, pay next to nothing.
If you consider shares, other assets and dollars in the bank as property I would agree.
RNG is offline  
Old May 27th, 2018, 06:24 AM   #18
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
The nation was funded with a sales tax until the income tax scheme came about. They were called tariffs
At one point the US Gov was funded almost entirely from liquor taxes. Very early in our country's history.
GluteusMaximus is online now  
Old May 27th, 2018, 08:24 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
... It would have been unfeasible to entirely or substantially fund a major national government with only a national lottery during simpler times; it's certainly less feasible now. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GluteusMaximus View Post
At one point the US Gov was funded almost entirely from liquor taxes. Very early in our country's history.
GluteusMaximus, when our nation began, we were not among the world's major national governments. Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old May 27th, 2018, 08:40 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
If you consider shares, other assets and dollars in the bank as property I would agree.
That's what I said, ALL Property.

Land, buildings, vehicles, guns, shares, bonds,everything.
Thanks from RNG
goober is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
fica, regressive, sales, tax, taxes, working-poor



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FICA and SECA are our most regressive taxes. Supposn Economics 11 June 13th, 2018 09:40 AM
MTV joins with the regressive left! coke Liberalism 0 July 8th, 2016 03:57 PM
Regressive left coke Political Ideologies 16 June 16th, 2016 03:29 PM
regressive taxes from liberals webguy4 Taxes 6 December 30th, 2014 04:31 PM
Employers’ Fica Taxes Are Equivalent To A Federal Sales Tax. Supposn Taxes 4 April 6th, 2011 07:04 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.