23% sales tax; no fed. income tax
 

Proposed. By a guy named Bork. Where are those economic majors to sift thru this?

Whaddya think? I think getting rid of this huge accounting mess, making the IRS ... gone for the most part would greatly simplify my life. You spend a lot, you pay a lot. BTW, the 23% would basically match what the federal government obtains using the current system.

I guess this applies to any purchase... Wonder how this would affect the stock market. But, bottom line, no paying Uncle Sam in April (for me anyway, I am one of those that take their time getting the taxes done).

terrible idea...would effect the poor much more than the rich (no big surprise), while the rich would pay more for luxury items, everybody needs food, clothing etc...it would be a huge break for the richest folks!

Does make sense. 23% for people who have very little money and hardly pay any income tax, if any at all, would crush them. Paying 23% extra for food... not good.

What about the middle class though?

It wouldn't be as bad for the middle class but still...middle class America struggles now, even a little more burden would eventually sink many! Rich folks don't live paycheck to paycheck while most Middle class folks do. Look at it this way (oversimplified I know but still)...today the tax rates increase with income so the rich pay more in taxes (at least before they find loopholes), this system would have them paying at the same rate so the difference would have to come from somewhere...namely middle class and poor folks!

it's still a disaster, because you're still stuck paying social secutiry, still stuck paying state taxes, still stuck paying medicare payments to the government. basically, for someone like me, you'd be taking out the 15-20% federal tax, leaving all the other payroll deductions and then saying that I have to pay 23% on everything I buy, including food, clothing, gas, other necessities.

That's about the worst idea i've heard all day, and I'm sitting next a total tool at work here.

surely they wouldn't tax food, altho where i live, there is a state sales tax on food.

also, 23% sounds incredibly high to me. especially when i factor in that i already pay 10.% in local/state sales tax. that's a lot of money!
i wish they could simplify the tax code, just think if we no longer had to pay all those folks at the irs!
maybe they could send out 'tax cards'-depending on what level of income you are-they scan your card before you check out at the store, and the register figures your sales tax based on the bar code on your card.
hell, if they can use those stupid cards at grocery stores to store info on what kind of peanut butter you prefer, they could do this.

I agree with the others about it being a huge drain on the poor, and likely the middle class as well, but pgardn, I'm SOOOOO glad you brought it up, because on the surface flat taxes and national sales tax seem like a good idea-- hey! Everyone pays the same!-- and it's not until people actually start discussing it that the inherent flaws in the proposed ideas come out. (and that goes for some liberal sacred cows too) As always, grateful for Derby Trail-- I get horseracing education and can talk politics, too. :)

By the way, I was in favor of a sales tax for a while, too, until someone pointed out to me what a burden it would be on the poor. I hadn't thought about the cost of necessities as a portion of total income until then and how taxing purchased things would necessitate more of the poor's total income going towards taxes than the wealthy's. (The guy who explained it to me, by the way, is a self-made wealthy guy who very much favors graduated income tax with the rich paying more than the poor. So, yes, he was biased, but against his own financial interests, so go figure)

Well its not actually everyone pays the same. Its whoever consumes the most, pays the most. But the food clothes and gas part would really hurt. And clearly wealthy people consume more. But they can afford to, and 23% would not hurt them near as much.

And Z, 23% was what the study suggested would be needed based on current consumption, and current federal taxes.

If it had to be done, I would leave food and clothes off the list. Gas, I could live with. I rode the bus for a number of months when my car broke down.

Candy not considered a food. Make those kids eat fruit. Man that would really save some teeth. And then, what exactly is Candy... ? and the whole mess starts up again.

Except you've got poor rural people, who have no access to mass transit. And then you'd have rich people buying $40,000 dresses and suits, tax-free.

And what about toilet paper? :)

As you said, and the whole mess starts up again. Perhaps life is a constant struggle for a simple solution that doesn't exist.

food and meds should be exempt.
as for social security tax--not sure why you pay that out separately according to your check, it goes in the same big hole as fed income tax.

How about a luxury tax? A certain amount of every product is untaxed and anything over that is taxed at 23%. So any car you buy isn't taxed on the first $8,000 but anything beyond there is taxed at 23%. Seems that would accomplish the goal of replacing income tax more effectively.

i just wish they could simplify the fed tax system. all that paperwork, all the hourse spent filing. how hard is it to say i'm married, have two minor kids, what do i have to pay? and then pay it? how much money is spent on books, forms, 'help'(you ever call the irs 'help'line? not very helpful!), auditors...how much personnel do we pay to handle fed taxes???

Dude: just kidding....but what kind of car will you be buying for 8 grand?

That sounds like a better idea than just a flat 23% sales tax. I agree with others that a flat 23% sales tax would be be too big of a burden on the poor.

I still think the best idea would be a combination of a flat tax and some type of less complex, progressive income tax. For example, maybe they could have a 10-12% flat sales tax and also a simple, progressive income tax where people who make under $25,000 a year pay no income tax, people who make $25,000-$50,000 a year could pay a 5% income tax, people who make $51,000-$100,000 a year could pay a 8% income tax, people who make $101,000-$200,000 a year could pay around a 10-12% income tax, and people who make over $200,000 a year could pay around a 15-20% income tax.

Z your right I completely forgot about the meds... see the list of exemptions starts growing and the complexity increases exponentially as GR mentioned. What a mess. I hate doing taxes, my father left me some property that is not worth much money and it is such a pain in the rear. And then he had an IRA so I have to withdraw a certain amount out of that small IRA every year using a formula that accountants have a mess with...

no, he said the first 8 would be exempt. so if you bought a 30 k car, you'd be taxed on 22k.

A used car. Nothing wrong with that.

And then the very rich give birth to a cow. If the trend above continues.

Yeah, it isn't like if you buy a car for $8,001 you are suddenly getting taxed for 23% on all of it. You'd just get taxed 23 cents for that one dollar past $8,000. So a $15,000 car would cost you $1610 in sales tax as opposed to $1200 if the full price was taxed at 8 percent. A small difference if you are getting relief on income tax. The people buying $100,000 vehicles would be the ones getting hit by it as that would cost $21,160 in taxes rather than $8,000.

It might keep people from buying stuff they cant afford...

OH NO. That would ruin an economy that already runs on a huge deficit.

I'm not sure what that means but unless you own your house free and clear, 25 grand a year is not gonna cut it! My insurance covers meds and such, which saves me at least 800-1000 bucks per month. Everything has such a 'domino effect' on everything else! Pretty bleak unless you are making 100,000 per yr and then you still have to have a pretty good tax man!

Nah, they'll just buy more smaller items to make up for it. Instead of the poor people that blow their money on a 53 inch TV they'll buy four 27 inchers for their living room to avoid the tax.

Damn! I really wanted that Porshe Cayenne in candy apple red(no midlife crisis here)

Sniper: That's an ugly thought!

Oh Im sorry. the baby cow would be born with the following trend continuing:

That sounds like a better idea than just a flat 23% sales tax. I agree with others that a flat 23% sales tax would be be too big of a burden on the poor.

I still think the best idea would be a combination of a flat tax and some type of less complex, progressive income tax. For example, maybe they could have a 10-12% flat sales tax and also a simple, progressive income tax where people who make under $25,000 a year pay no income tax, people who make $25,000-$50,000 a year could pay a 5% income tax, people who make $51,000-$100,000 a year could pay a 8% income tax, people who make $101,000-$200,000 a year could pay around a 10-12% income tax, and people who make over $200,000 a year could pay around a 15-20% income tax.


For the very rich... It would mean they would get the heck taxed out of them, but I assume there would be an upper limit.

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

i agree that cost of living should be factored in. 20k here in arkansas goes a lot further than 20k in new york or california.

Flat taxes aren't a terrible idea, the key is not allowing people to get around the tax. The IRS wouldn't need to be disbanded, their role would have to change.

Consumption taxes are not a new idea. The thought of putting a dollar tax on gas right now in order to push conservation and actually lowering overall oil prices would probably work. It is those kinds of taxes which need to be enacted first.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the highest tax bracket would pay 15-20% in income tax. Nobody would pay more than 20% in income tax even if they make $20 million a year.

Oh good, I was worried about that:eek:

\


Again, I disagree there...I'd tax the rich as I said previously...90-95% of income over some set amount...nobody needs all the money in the world!

You want to tax me 90- 95%!!! How dare you think of such blasphemy!! Who are you anyway, Karl Marx? They tried this communism thing once before, didn't turn out too well.

I agree with you that nobody needs that much money. But I don't think it's up to me or you to tell a person that we're taking away 90-95% of his income because we think he makes too much. I think that is totally un-American. If a guy works his butt off to make a ton of money, there shouldn't be a limit on what he can make. Besides, who is to say that the government will make better use of the money than the person. For example, Waren Buffett is giving all his money to charity. He is worth around $50 billion and he is going to give it all away. Do you think it would have been better for the government to take that money?

There aren't really very many billionaires out there any way. But what about people like Oprah or Tiger Woods? Tiger makes about $80 million a year. I don't think it would be fair to take 90-95% of that money away from him. He could not live the way he lives right now, if you took 95% of his income away. He travels everywhere on private jets. He has more than one home. A nice house(4,000 sq. feet) in Beverly Hills costs around $3-4 million. I'm not even talking about a mansion. A mansion out here is going to cost at least $10 million. I think Tiger deserves to be rich. He worked his butt off to become the greatest golfer in the world. He is entitled to be rich and he is entitled to have a few mansions if that is what he wants.

I'll tell you one thing that I would change if I was in charge. I don't think it's fair for these CEOs to be getting hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options. That money is coming right out of the shareholders' pockets. I don't have a problem with a CEO of a big company making a few million a year in salary and I don't have a problem if he gets a reasonable amount of stock options. It would be one thing if the stock went crazy and went from $10 a share up to $100 a share and the CEO made $50 million or so. But it is crazy when CEOs get $200 million of free stock when the stock didn't even perform particularly well. These guys are so overpaid it is crazy and the money is coming right out of the shareholders' pockets.

What am I going to do? Am I going to stop investing in the stock market just because CEOs are overpaid? Where else am I going to put my money? There aren't really too many other options. I'm pretty much forced to accept it whether I like it or not.

Let's just pretend you came up with some great idea or great invention and you decided to sell it for $100 million. Do you think it would be fair for the government to take 90-95% of that money? If you lived in an expensive area, you could hardly even retire. If they took 95%, that would leave you with $5 million. If you are really conservative and wanted to just keep the money in the bank, you would only get around $250,000 a year. After taxes, you would only be left with around $130,000 a year. If you bought a $2 million house, your mortgage payment alone would be $120,000 a year.

OK, I've listened to enough ranting...let me repeat myself...NOBODY NEEDS ALL THAT MONEY! It amuses me that the same old greed-filled arguments are pulled out to defend folks right to be rich! Let me get my hankie so I can cry over the fate of someone forced to live on a measly few million dollars...wawawa! Explain to me why you NEED a two million dollar house, or a private jet?? Explain all these NEEDS to folks living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans...oh yeah, that's right...they're just lazy and deserve to suffer..right?? Just like those kids who starve to death in the Third World or die from diseases for which we have had cures for years! Yes, I guess you are right...my way of thinking is UnAmerican...afterall, like the lady in the song, you can buy the stairway to heaven! What right do I have to tell someone that they have enough money? What right does anyone have who sees injustice to speak?? I'm the bad guy? All I want is to end poverty and human suffering...excuse me if some folks have to slum it in a cheaper home or fly on a commercial airliner, or join one less country club! What arrogance!! You guys actually believe that some folks DESERVE unlimited wealth and power while others DESERVE pain and suffering?? Please, tell these people how they must suffer so that you can buy another Rolls! Oh, and the only thing wrong with communism is communists...human nature unfortunately trumps the best intentions.

For the record, I kind of agree. I don't believe in inheritance. People should make their lives for themselves, not count on the death of others to keep them going.

The other posters can decide which one of us is "ranting".

I want to end poverty and human suffering just as much as you do.

You ask why someone needs a $2 million house? You can't even get a really nice house for $2 million in Beverly Hills. In Beverly Hills, you might be able to get a 2,500-3,000 sq. ft house for that price. But I guess everyone should just have a small house according to you.

By the way, I'm not rich. So I'm not being selfish by wanting to protect the rights of all people including rich people. It doesn't help me for Oprah to have $500 million, but I'm still going to stand up for her rights as much as I would stand up for the rights of a poor person. So that makes me the bad guy?

You accuse us of arrogance, yet you are the one who wants to take away people's money that they made fair and square.