"Fair Share"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Adding a national sales tax would financially kill people making less than $50,000 a year, just decimate them financially, worse for those making less than $25,000.

I agree that a progressive system in federal taxes is good, especially when you have regressive state and local taxes that hit the poor the hardest.

You can't get Congress to even consider eliminating a tax break, loophole or subsidy. See what just happened with oil company subsidies. I remember Bush laughing when they picked the expiration date for his unfunded tax cuts. We knew it was coming, and so did the GOP. And they calculated right: they wouldn't be the ones in office when they expired.

I think it is an exaggeration to say that a national sales tax would "kill people that make less than $25k a year". If a person makes $25k a year, I assume they are paying rent. There would be no national sales tax on rent. Let's say their rent is $500 a month. That means they would be left with $19k to spend. There would be no national sales tax on health insurance or car insurance or any of those things. After all those things were paid, how much would the person have left to spend, maybe $15k? If they spent every dime of that on things that had a national sales tax, they means they would have spent $750 total for the year on taxes. If you make $25k a year and your total tax bill is $750 for the entire year, that isn't so bad.

If you think that is too much I guess there could be an exemption on the sales tax for people who make under a certain amount.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it is an exaggeration to say that a national sales tax would "kill people that make less than $25k a year". If a person makes $25k a year, I assume they are paying rent. There would be no national sales tax on rent. Let's say their rent is $500 a month. That means they would be left with $19k to spend. There would be no national sales tax on health insurance or car insurance or any of those things. After all those things were paid, how much would the person have left to spend, maybe $15k? If they spent every dime of that on things that had a national sales tax, they means they would have spent $750 total for the year on taxes. If you make $25k a year and your total tax bill is $750 for the entire year, that isn't so bad.

If you think that is too much I guess there could be an exemption on the sales tax for people who make under a certain amount.

Adding another 5% tax on groceries, Wal Mart, gasoline, etc. us tough when you're poor, and don't forget the flat federal income tax on their entire income, too (I thought you said a national sales tax and a flat tax too?)

We'd have to exempt certain poverty-level incomes. The middle class, heck, those making less than $300,000 or so a year, hasn't had an effective "raise" in their real income in four decades. Flatline. Stagnant. They can't afford any additional taxes.

Can we just start eliminating loopholes for those that can best afford it first? The very wealthy?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Adding another 5% tax on groceries, Wal Mart, gasoline, etc. us tough when you're poor, and don't forget the flat federal income tax on their entire income, too (I thought you said a national sales tax and a flat tax too?)

We'd have to exempt certain poverty-level incomes. The middle class, heck, those making less than $300,000 or so a year, hasn't had an effective "raise" in their real income in four decades. Flatline. Stagnant. They can't afford any additional taxes.

Can we just start eliminating loopholes for those that can best afford it first? The very wealthy?

I had said that people that make under $40k would pay no income tax. That means the only tax they pay would be the national sales tax. So a person that makes $25k a year would probably pay less than $750 total in taxes for the whole year.

For a person that makes $200,000 a year, I had suggested they would be in the 10% tax bracket, which would be on any income above $40,000. So that person would be taxed 10% of $160,000. So they would pay $16,000 in income taxes. If they spent an additional $70,000 a year on items that were part of the national sales tax, then they would have spent an additional $3,500 on the sales tax. That means the person's total federal taxes (income + sales tax) would be $19,500 for the year. I think that is reasonable for a person who clears $200,000 a year after expenses.

I agree with you that we should eliminate most of the loopholes that some of the very wealthy use.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I had said that people that make under $40k would pay no income tax. That means the only tax they pay would be the national sales tax. So a person that makes $25k a year would probably pay less than $750 total in taxes for the whole year.

For a person that makes $200,000 a year, I had suggested they would be in the 10% tax bracket, which would be on any income above $40,000. So that person would be taxed 10% of $160,000. So they would pay $16,000 in income taxes. If they spent an additional $70,000 a year on items that were part of the national sales tax, then they would have spent an additional $3,500 on the sales tax. That means the person's total federal taxes (income + sales tax) would be $19,500 for the year. I think that is reasonable for a person who clears $200,000 a year after expenses.

I agree with you that we should eliminate most of the loopholes that some of the very wealthy use.

Like all flat tax proposals, it sounds good. But now you have to figure out how much money that will bring in, and compare it to our current income level.

I've seen estimates that a flat tax would have to be at a rate of 23-25% to replace our current income. Rick Perry wanted 20%, and his budget busted immediately as there wasn't enough income to pay for what we need.

We can't figure income first or separately from our expenditures. We have certain fixed expenses as a country. We have to pay those. We use taxes to pay our group expenses. Bush gave massive tax cuts (cut our income markedly) without cutting spending, then added on unfunded wars on top of that. That's why we have a massive deficit. Obama worsened it by not allowing Bush tax cuts to expire. They must. Bush gave away our income, and we need it back. Especially as he added those unfunded wars on top of what he suddenly stopped paying for.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Like all flat tax proposals, it sounds good. But now you have to figure out how much money that will bring in, and compare it to our current income level.

I've seen estimates that a flat tax would have to be at a rate of 23-25% to replace our current income. Rick Perry wanted 20%, and his budget busted immediately as there wasn't enough income to pay for what we need.

We can't figure income first or separately from our expenditures. We have certain fixed expenses as a country. We have to pay those. We use taxes to pay our group expenses. Bush gave massive tax cuts (cut our income markedly) without cutting spending, then added on unfunded wars on top of that. That's why we have a massive deficit. Obama worsened it by not allowing Bush tax cuts to expire. They must. Bush gave away our income, and we need it back. Especially as he added those unfunded wars on top of what he suddenly stopped paying for.

I obviously haven't seen the numbers so I don't know how much a national sales tax would bring in. I know that a 5% national sales tax would not be enough to eliminate income tax but I think it would be enough to lower income taxes substantially.

How much do you think someone should pay in federal income tax if they make over $1 million a year? I think 30% is reasonable.

[joeydb]

No one wants a sales tax in addition to income tax more like in lieu of income tax.

The "progressive" tax model is inherently unfair and akin to being socialistic. Why? Because your last bag of $10000 should not be taxed at any higher rate than your first bag of $10000.

If it is higher for a given group of people "because they can afford it", then that is discriminitory in a socialistic way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No one wants a sales tax in addition to income tax more like in lieu of income tax.

The "progressive" tax model is inherently unfair and akin to being socialistic. Why? Because your last bag of $10000 should not be taxed at any higher rate than your first bag of $10000.

If it is higher for a given group of people "because they can afford it", then that is discriminitory in a socialistic way.

I think you have it backwards. They give tax breaks on the lower portions of income. Taking 10 percent off a hundred affects the person left with ninety far more than taking a hundred and leaving someone with nine hundred. So, those on the low end pay less, because they have less...and need a greater portion of what they do have to survive...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No one wants a sales tax in addition to income tax more like in lieu of income tax.

The "progressive" tax model is inherently unfair and akin to being socialistic. Why? Because your last bag of $10000 should not be taxed at any higher rate than your first bag of $10000.

If it is higher for a given group of people "because they can afford it", then that is discriminitory in a socialistic way.

If they did a federal sales tax in lieu of income taxes, I think they would have to make the federal sales tax really high to make up for all the lost revenue. If the federal sales tax was in lieu, my guess is that it would probably be around 25% or higher. I think that is way too high. That is why I suggested a combination where they have a small federal sales tax and then they could lower federal income tax, but not eliminate it.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I obviously haven't seen the numbers so I don't know how much a national sales tax would bring in. I know that a 5% national sales tax would not be enough to eliminate income tax but I think it would be enough to lower income taxes substantially.

How much do you think someone should pay in federal income tax if they make over $1 million a year? I think 30% is reasonable.

I asked how much is enough, the answer will never come because there is never going to be enough.
30% might be reasonable as a total but just federal? That person will likely be well over 50% after all other taxes are figured, especially if you remove any write-offs/'loophoples'.

[Riot]

The Republicans are all about War on the Poor, and Tax the Poor.

Somebody has to pay for new tax cuts for the wealthy.

Geesh, much of that party has changed to be heartless, cold bastards. It's true - Reagan would be far too "liberal" for the John Birchers inhabiting the current GOP Grandee base.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I asked how much is enough, the answer will never come because there is never going to be enough.
30% might be reasonable as a total but just federal? That person will likely be well over 50% after all other taxes are figured, especially if you remove any write-offs/'loophoples'.

If you live in a state where they have state income tax, you would probably end up paying around 40%. I think most state income taxes are about 9% for the highest bracket. So you would pay 30% in federal, then 9% to the state.

I wasn't saying that they should eliminate all write-offs. A person should be entitled to write off legitimate expenses.