Jump to content
Supposn

A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax.

Recommended Posts

A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax.

References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues.

General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes.

“Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes.

What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys.

The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes.

Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation.

The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this all is our more regressive income tax systems. The regressive character of our current income tax systems are inadequately reduced by our current progressive income tax rates.

Additionally they believe that our government’s social programs are also inadequate and they’ are of net social and economic benefit to our nation.

I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax.

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to read with the small font supposn. There are a lot of questions to be asked regarding a flat tax, a host of questions. Part of the problem with a flat tax is indeed inequity. You say our current tax system is regressive. In many ways I would have to agree. But the other side of the coin is subsidy, or so called implicit expenditure the tax payer is straddled with by loss of revenue. I'm not satisfied that a flat tax would solve that malady at all. Sales tax if implemented correctly can go a long way in reducing bad acts by bad actors in my opinion. If you were going to legalize a substance that has no inherent good for the individual who would partake in it, that would be problematic not only for the individual who say smokes cigarettes or drinks too much alcohol, but also for the society at large who in the end does have to deal with abuse or the possibly bad outcome that it may encompass.

 

The problems with our tax system are definitely systematic these days. Lots of news reporting on subsidizing expenditures are unfortunately given little perspective these days.

 

 

One being the pharmaceutical corporation subsidies regarding patent laws. We protect pharmaceutical companies with long patent rights that allow them to over charge in the billions of dollars each year in the US. That's just one example, there are many more.

 

The idea of a flat tax is really a moot point because it could never be instituted - it's impossible. A lot of populist politicians do bring this up every year making it sound very attractive but the point I make is this. If we could just get a little smarter with the basic economics of tax revenue and many private industries are given in implicit subsidy we could go a long long way in reducing what you call a regressive tax system. Yet we don't do that.

 

We do that because nobody in the press discusses such things. Politicians for the most part do not.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I had to do this one over. I tried to introduce a graphic and rephrase a few things but the site would not allow it. Here is what I meant to say.

 

Hard to read with the small font supposn. There are a lot of questions to be asked regarding a flat tax, a host of questions. Part of the problem with a flat tax is indeed inequity. You say our current tax system is regressive. In many ways I would have to agree. But the other side of the coin is subsidy, or so called implicit expenditure the tax payer is straddled with by loss of revenue. I'm not satisfied that a flat tax would solve that malady at all. Sales tax if implemented correctly can go a long way in reducing bad acts by bad actors in my opinion. If you were going to legalize a substance that has no inherent good for the individual who would partake in it, that would be problematic not only for the individual who say smokes cigarettes or drinks too much alcohol, but also for the society at large who in the end does have to deal with abuse or the possibly bad outcome that it may encompass.

 

The problems with our tax system are definitely systematic these days. Lots of news reporting on subsidizing expenditures are unfortunately given little perspective these days.

 

 

One being the pharmaceutical corporation subsidies regarding patent laws. We protect pharmaceutical companies with long patent rights that allow them to over charge in the billions of dollars each year in the US. That's just one example, there are many more.

 

The idea of a flat tax is really a moot point because it could never be instituted - it's impossible. A lot of populist politicians do bring this up every year making it sound very attractive but the point I make is this. If we could just get a little smarter with the basic economics of tax revenue and exactly how many private industries are given implicit subsidy we could go a long long way in reducing what you call a regressive tax system. Yet we don't do that.

 

We don't do that because nobody in the press discusses such things. Politicians for the most part do not. Tax laws are hidden in bills and written by corporations for the most part, and not by legislators.

A flat tax in the long run is really a subsidy to the rich. It's a wolf in sheep's clothes. Sure it sounds good, especially to Libertarians who for the most part in my opinion are uninformed, but you really have to look at the brass tax regarding the full economic picture. On the one hand, those who are billionaires as well as corporations, would not end up paying less than they do now, even with their subsidies, they would pay less. So it is a drag on the already dwindling middle class. Another incorrect statement is that it would reduce the number of tax brackets making it much easier to implement. This is also incorrect, it does not matter how many brackets you have, most especially in today's world. The question should be what is fair, a flat tax ain't.

 

Here's a list of countries that currently institute a flat tax and their tax rates. sorry that is not allowed. I got the list from wikipedia. You can type in flat tax there and see it. Russia is probably the most successful one of the bunch.

 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flat tax is very regressive. Both on income and on sales. The only question is would you rather have someone take 49 billion out of our economy and put it in his pocket, or 50 billion?

 

I have often see the rubric that 47% of people in the US don't pay any income taxes. I would argue that unless you make enough money at your job to earn enough to buy food, shelter and medical care for your family, have a retirement and pay taxes, you are really unemployed. So about half of all people are unemployed, and most of the other half are only a paycheck away, our society is in real trouble.

 

The trick is to provide enough opportunity for all people to earn enough to support life. Anything less creates an unstable society and will result in revolution. I am hoping the next revolution will be non-violent. I don't see any other option. Those in power are not going to willing let people have their lives back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to read with the small font supposn. ...

 

TheOldBarn, sorry about the Font size.

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

A flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax.

References to income taxes are generally understood to be taxes based upon net incomes; net incomes are generally understood to be gross revenues of cash or other items of value reduced by the expenditures for the purpose of acquiring revenues.

General sales taxes are generally based upon taxing gross values of cash or barter sales transactions of items. Generally intellectual property, real estate, and transferable financial instruments such as stocks, bonds or currency have not been considered as items subject to general sales taxes.

“Flat” rated taxes upon net incomes or gross sales transactions are calculated at a uniform rate the basis of those taxes.

What are the “real” or “actual” net incomes are subject to differences of opinions among accountants and among tax attorneys.

The extent of a taxes “regressive” attribute is dependent upon opinions regarding the consequential proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers relative to their net incomes.

Those on the “right” of our political spectrum are of the opinion that government’s social programs are unnecessary expenses and our “progressive” income tax rates are choosing losers and winners. Additionally believe that government social programs are unjustifiable expenses and all of this is of net economic detriment to our nation.

The general opinions of those on the “left” of our political spectrum is our income tax regulations currently are more favorable to wealthier segments of our population; thus unjustifiably reducing their taxable incomes proportion to their actual net incomes. The consequences of this is our income tax regulations are less progressive than implied by our progressive tax rates; (thus our taxes are more regressive than otherwise).

I’m a populist; I contend that a flat general sales tax is less regressive than a flat income tax; I do not believe we can or we should replace our federal income taxes with a general sales tax; I do advocate we incrementally replace income taxes with sales taxes.

Excerpted from the thread http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174111-can-the-fair-tax-ever-be-passed-and-enacted/ :

I expect that after one of the incremental steps, we’d have a federal sales tax approaching an unacceptable tax rate and transfers of the revenue sources would be discontinued.

If I’m correct we’ll have a hybrid federal tax system. Everyone will pay sales taxes; only higher income earners will pay taxes upon their net incomes.

If I’m wrong, federal income taxes could be entirely eliminated.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem becomes the issues with state taxes.

Some states have no income tax like mine. Some states have no sales tax.

Depending on where you live, your tax burden changes.

Flat taxes sound awesome. Yeah for equality! But then they don't really work out that way. (Someone needs to tell Senator Cruz) Small business owners have different needs than some 19 yr old working at Jack in the Box. People want to say "But see now they will only have to pay a percentage, and we will all pay the same percentage, so it works out." But that small business owner needs some of those tax breaks, so there goes the flax tax

 

The sales tax complicates taxations through states and the feds. Because now states with average or high sales taxes will have the addition of the federal sales tax and so buying anything in that state will be so high, that state's economy will suffer. Businesses will leave, etc And states without a sales tax poeple will flock to.

So while the sales tax thing would do wonders because it would based taxes on consumption (and the more you make the more you consume) it would screw over the states.

 

My state lacks an income tax. But we have the same sales tax as our big neighbor next door to help the counter the above issues. $100 TV costs the same in LA as it does in Reno, including the taxes. $108.25. What we do have is a 6% gaming tax. And property taxes can be high. it is awesome not having an income tax for NV, but fees for things at DMV, any state licensing, traffic tickets, etc are out of control. And our schools are way underfunded. So i honestly don't think there is a "good" way to do taxes. They just have to be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to read with the small font supposn. There are a lot of questions to be asked regarding a flat tax, a host of questions. Part of the problem with a flat tax is indeed inequity. You say our current tax system is regressive. In many ways I would have to agree. But the other side of the coin is subsidy, or so called implicit expenditure the tax payer is straddled with by loss of revenue. I'm not satisfied that a flat tax would solve that malady at all. Sales tax if implemented correctly can go a long way in reducing bad acts by bad actors in my opinion. If you were going to legalize a substance that has no inherent good for the individual who would partake in it, that would be problematic not only for the individual who say smokes cigarettes or drinks too much alcohol, but also for the society at large who in the end does have to deal with abuse or the possibly bad outcome that it may encompass.

 

The problems with our tax system are definitely systematic these days. Lots of news reporting on subsidizing expenditures are unfortunately given little perspective these days.

 

 

One being the pharmaceutical corporation subsidies regarding patent laws. We protect pharmaceutical companies with long patent rights that allow them to over charge in the billions of dollars each year in the US. That's just one example, there are many more.

 

The idea of a flat tax is really a moot point because it could never be instituted - it's impossible. A lot of populist politicians do bring this up every year making it sound very attractive but the point I make is this. If we could just get a little smarter with the basic economics of tax revenue and many private industries are given in implicit subsidy we could go a long long way in reducing what you call a regressive tax system. Yet we don't do that.

 

We do that because nobody in the press discusses such things. Politicians for the most part do not.

 

Peace!

///////////////////

 

TheOldBarn, you have written of your concern for some factors which affect our economy. We all have differing prioritized lists. I wish you good fortune if it’s your intention find and promote THE panacea for your entire list.

I do not have a similar aspiration with regard to my own list. I’d be pleased if we could

effectively diminish the harm due to any of my itemized factors’ detriments to our economy. Of course I’d be more pleased if we could entirely eliminate that harm.

 

Each of our listed item and usually their sub-items are worthy of their own discussion threads.

I’ve devoted this thread to a comparison between general sales taxes and a flat text upon net incomes. I’m among those contending a general sales tax is preferable to a flat rated income tax.

 

Regarding an application of a general sales tax, refer to the thread:

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/174111-can-the-fair-tax-ever-be-passed-and-enacted/ .

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flat tax is very regressive. Both on income and on sales. The only question is would you rather have someone take 49 billion out of our economy and put it in his pocket, or 50 billion?

 

I have often see the rubric that 47% of people in the US don't pay any income taxes. I would argue that unless you make enough money at your job to earn enough to buy food, shelter and medical care for your family, have a retirement and pay taxes, you are really unemployed. So about half of all people are unemployed, and most of the other half are only a paycheck away, our society is in real trouble.

 

The trick is to provide enough opportunity for all people to earn enough to support life. Anything less creates an unstable society and will result in revolution. I am hoping the next revolution will be non-violent. I don't see any other option. Those in power are not going to willing let people have their lives back.

 

DonJoe, for various reason there is great dissatisfaction with our major sources of federal tax revenues, (i.e. our federal individual and corporate income taxes). Among those dissatisfied, there are many who contend that our federal income taxes would be greatly improved if we simplify our tax regulations and had a single tax rate upon taxable income.

 

I contend that our income taxes are not progressive to the extent implied by our progressive rates upon taxable incomes.

 

The consequences of simplifying our tax regulations and a single uniform tax rate upon all taxable income would reduce the proportion of tax revenues paid by higher earners, which increases the proportions from lesser earners; additionally if such regulations were enacted to be revenue neutral, the amounts paid by lesser earners would be significantly greater.

Refer to this thread’s 11:48 PM, March 30, 2015 post.

 

Taxes, the median wage’s purchasing power, rates of unemployment are all inter-related factors within our economy; but if we are to successfully deal with them, they should be treated as separate topics.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DonJoe, for various reason there is great dissatisfaction with our major sources of federal tax revenues, (i.e. our federal individual and corporate income taxes). Among those dissatisfied, there are many who contend that our federal income taxes would be greatly improved if we simplify our tax regulations and had a single tax rate upon taxable income.

 

I contend that our income taxes are not progressive to the extent implied by our progressive rates upon taxable incomes.

 

The consequences of simplifying our tax regulations and a single uniform tax rate upon all taxable income would reduce the proportion of tax revenues paid by higher earners, which increases the proportions from lesser earners; additionally if such regulations were enacted to be revenue neutral, the amounts paid by lesser earners would be significantly greater.

Refer to this thread’s 11:48 PM, March 30, 2015 post.

 

Taxes, the median wage’s purchasing power, rates of unemployment are all inter-related factors within our economy; but if we are to successfully deal with them, they should be treated as separate topics.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

 

I agree with all that. Which means I oppose changing to either a flat sales tax or a flat income tax. It doesn't really matter which one is more regressive, neither are acceptable.

 

With that being said, there is room, in my opinion, for simplification of the tax code. For example, I don't think we need massive amounts of tax regulations which give tax breaks to specific individuals and companies. Many corporations have their taxes reduced to zero because of all the "regulations" which have been put in place. If simplification means getting rid of those purchased loopholes then I am all in favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with all that. Which means I oppose changing to either a flat sales tax or a flat income tax. It doesn't really matter which one is more regressive, neither are acceptable.

 

With that being said, there is room, in my opinion, for simplification of the tax code. For example, I don't think we need massive amounts of tax regulations which give tax breaks to specific individuals and companies. Many corporations have their taxes reduced to zero because of all the "regulations" which have been put in place. If simplification means getting rid of those purchased loopholes then I am all in favor.

It's a simple exercise to project a tax plan that would leave the bottom 80% paying about the same in tax while allowing the top 20% and especially the top 1% to pay much less. The result would be reduced revenue and a big increase in the Federal deficit.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flat income tax is just a regressive as a flat sales tax.

 

Flat Income Tax:

A $20,000 a yr earner taxed at 20% keeps $16,000. Leftover $$$ Unlikely... Depending on circumstances, might have to borrow.

A $400,000 a yr earner taxed at 20% keeps $320,000.

 

Flat Sales Tax:

A 20% sales tax leaves the $20,000 a yr earner with just $16,000 and probably nothing left over; possibly in debt.

The $400,000 a yr earner, if he spends say, $64,000 + 20%sales tax = $80,000... $320,000 is left over.

 

A $6,000,000 yearly earner paying 20% flat income tax gets to keep Four Million, Eight Hundred Thousand dollars. He also gets to keep $4,800,000 with a flat sales tax, assuming he spends say, $1,200,000 dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's needed of course, is a progressive tax with income brackets like we have now. But one that's not riddled with loopholes, huge and small, like we have now. In particular, the ultra rich and corporations shouldn't be permitted to buy legislation by bribing lawmakers, to lighten their fair share of taxes. But they do it with near impunity now through campaign contributions and lobbying/bribing elected officials. More so since Citizen's United.

 

Other taxes like a very small amount on each stock trade would mount up significant tax revenue. Of course the powerful paper pusher's lobby/banking-investment industry is buying exactly the opposite types of legislation.

 

Someone made a good rhetorical point:-- "No Taxation Without Representation". So only the very rich and corp's should pay taxes because they're the only one's represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • diddle dee dee


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...