Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

The fairest way to tax people would be a national sales tax.


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

I like this even better:

 

$5,000 per Adult of Working Age (AWA)
A Fair Tax That Actually Is!


It's as Simple as This:

Population of the United States between the ages of 18 and 65 (Adults of Working Age)?

~ 200,000,000. (Two-Hundred-Million AWA )

Annual Budget of the United States?

~ $1,000,000,000,000. (One-Trillion Dollars)

$1,000,000,000,000/200,000,000 AWA = $10,000/2 AWA or $5,000/AWA.

Now THAT sounds Fair!

Everybody:
- Uses.
- Pays.
- Has skin in the game.

Be interesting to see how fast those Democrat National Socialists shrink the Government when it starts coming out of their own pocket.

 

I get your point but, I much prefer the "Fair Tax" (national sales tax without income tax).

 

and for the record, the annual budget of the USA is closer to $4.5 trillion in recent years. God knows what it will go to in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Actually, Slideman, is correct. The more one earns, the smaller percentage is attributed to consumption spending. What is consumption spending? It is purchasing of goods such as food, cars, clothes, etc. that are physical and not purchased SOLELY for purposes of growing in value (stocks, bonds, collectors items). One person can only consume so much. Whether one is rich or poor, our capacity for consumption is about the same. 

 

What a person earns, or how successful a person is - is none of your fuckin' Business.

 

A fair tax... is.

 

Should a wealthy person get to vote more, proportionally?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

What a person earns, or how successful a person is - is none of your fuckin' Business.

 

A fair tax... is.

 

Should a wealthy person get to vote more, proportionally?

 

 

Interesting how you always obfuscate. I could say that 2^3 = 8 and you would reply with your standard braindead BS about communists. When most people with an IQ above 20 can tell you that 2^3 = 8 and communism are in no way related. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

You are quantifying this by dollar amount which is disingenuous. Of course, the rich person is going to spend more. 1 new BMW is worth as much as 5,6,7 used junker cars. 

 

Ask yourself, does a rich person ate more food in absolute amount (not the amount paid for it) than a poor person? 

I understand that the percentage of tax paid vs income would remain skewed. I don't find that particularly relevant.

 

With something like the "Fair tax" the idea is to have a sort of what they call "prebate" where people would not be taxed on the first $xxx of spending to cover essentials. This would mitigate the percentage difference as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, superds77 said:

I get your point but, I much prefer the "Fair Tax" (national sales tax without income tax).

 

and for the record, the annual budget of the USA is closer to $4.5 trillion in recent years. God knows what it will go to in the future.

 

That's because we allow them to spend it.

 

Cut out Federal Socialism/Communism/Entitlements, redundant agencies to the States, and foreign aid and defense, and see what you got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Interesting how you always obfuscate. I could say that 2^3 = 8 and you would reply with your standard braindead BS about communists. When most people with an IQ above 20 can tell you that 2^3 = 8 and communism are in no way related. 

 

Talk about obfuscation!

 

What a person earns, or how successful a person is - is none of your fuckin' Business.

 

A fair tax... is.

 

Should a wealthy person get to vote more, proportionally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, superds77 said:

I understand that the percentage of tax paid vs income would remain skewed. I don't find that particularly relevant.

 

With something like the "Fair tax" the idea is to have a sort of what they call "prebate" where people would not be taxed on the first $xxx of spending to cover essentials. This would mitigate the percentage difference as well.

the point is that it has been proven that sales taxes are regressive. Time and time again, regardless of geography or politics, this has proven to be true. The reason is that one person can only consume so much. If this was not the case, Bill Gates would consume more and more food as his income increased. There is no way to refute that without being illogical. 

 

The real issue, in my opinion, is not revenue. It has always been and is an issue of spending. In any situation where a person or group has financial problems, there are two solutions... increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Decreasing expenditures is generally easier and more effective because the person is in control of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Talk about obfuscation!

 

What a person earns, or how successful a person is - is none of your fuckin' Business.

 

A fair tax... is.

 

Should a wealthy person get to vote more, proportionally?

I challenge you to show me where I EXPLICITLY state that I care what they make. I am simply illustrating a well known concept.. it has been in economics text books since the 1960's. Apparently, you have never read it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slideman said:

Rich people spend a smaller proportion of their income on consumer goods than poorer people do.

Sales tax is regressive and unfair.

Wow…..this site needs a BS flag emoji - because this post is an absolute load of horseshit.

 

I’m employed by well to do folks, I fly their jet for them. They spend a metric shit ton of money on both goods and people (jobs). 
 

Your post is incredibly ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Actually, Slideman, is correct. The more one earns, the smaller percentage is attributed to consumption spending. What is consumption spending? It is purchasing of goods such as food, cars, clothes, etc. that are physical and not purchased SOLELY for purposes of growing in value (stocks, bonds, collectors items). One person can only consume so much. Whether one is rich or poor, our capacity for consumption is about the same. 

 

Uhh...not an entirely fair assessment.

 

Assume both purchase one car...the "poor person" purchase a Kia Rio ($16,150) and the rich person purchases a Bugatti Veyron ($2,580,000).  They both "consume" one automobile...but one "consumed" $16k in goods and the other "consumed" 156.36 times that and would pay 156.36 times the taxes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BatteryPowered said:

 

Uhh...not an entirely fair assessment.

 

Assume both purchase one car...the "poor person" purchase a Kia Rio ($16,150) and the rich person purchases a Bugatti Veyron ($2,580,000).  They both "consume" one automobile...but one "consumed" $16k in goods and the other "consumed" 156.36 times that and would pay 156.36 times the taxes.

 

Now, lets assume that the rich person's income doubles. Are they going to purchase exactly twice as much consumption goods? 

 

History and mountains of data show that they do not. After a certain point (525,000 at last estimate), when one's income goes up by 1%, the personal consumption spending increase by less than 1%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I challenge you to show me where I EXPLICITLY state that I care what they make. I am simply illustrating a well known concept.. it has been in economics text books since the 1960's. Apparently, you have never read it. 

 

You base your argument on proportional Wealth and Income.

 

Should a wealthy person get to vote more, proportionally?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

the point is that it has been proven that sales taxes are regressive. Time and time again, regardless of geography or politics, this has proven to be true.

 

Have any of those "proofs" used a model that excludes certain items or are they all simply looking at percentages of income?  If low cost clothing, food, shoes, etc. are exempt...the thing most "poor" people buy...but high dollar items in those groups are taxed...the things "rich" people buy...the regressive nature is dramatically mitigated, if not eliminated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Have any of those "proofs" used a model that excludes certain items or are they all simply looking at percentages of income?  If low cost clothing, food, shoes, etc. are exempt...the thing most "poor" people buy...but high dollar items in those groups are taxed...the things "rich" people buy...the regressive nature is dramatically mitigated, if not eliminated.

 

 

Yes, they use percentage of income. Regressive and progressive are concepts based purely on percentage. To reformulate it without a percentage would be like making pizza with no crust, no sauce, and no cheese. 

 

So even when the nominal dollar amounts are used.. when income goes up by 1%.. consumption spending goes up by less than 1% after a certain income threshold. As of 2015, that threshold was 525,000. That is where the top of the bell curve was reached. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I never mention voting in any way so nice try. I challenge you to show me where I stated anything about voting. 

 

That is my question to you, myopic.

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

That is my question to you, myopic.

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

That's not what I am talking about. There has to be someone who cares that you took your first breath today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

the point is that it has been proven that sales taxes are regressive. Time and time again, regardless of geography or politics, this has proven to be true. The reason is that one person can only consume so much. If this was not the case, Bill Gates would consume more and more food as his income increased. There is no way to refute that without being illogical. 

 

 

I am not debating whether or not a sales tax system is regressive. How regressive is debatable and depends on how it is structured. But more wealthy people, do spend a great deal more and therefore would pay a great deal more in taxes. Food is one of the areas where, yes, to some degree that amounts would not be that much different in the big picture. As I stated earlier, I don't think the fact that this system is regressive is an effective argument against it.

 

Tax avoidance by the wealthier people would diminish greatly under such a system.

 

22 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The real issue, in my opinion, is not revenue. It has always been and is an issue of spending. In any situation where a person or group has financial problems, there are two solutions... increase revenue or decrease expenditures. Decreasing expenditures is generally easier and more effective because the person is in control of it. 

Well said. Agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wallco1 said:

I don't know the exact percentage, but the more you buy the more tax you pay. Rich people buy more and expensive items than poor people so they would pay more. No deductions, no loopholes. People cannot work under the table. 

 

Flat percentage income tax.

 

Only was to assure the rich pay more and the poor pay less ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

That's not what I am talking about. There has to be someone who cares that you took your first breath today. 

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Unrelated to what I am talking about. You seriously can't strike up a conversation with someone else on this topic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Unrelated to what I am talking about. You seriously can't strike up a conversation with someone else on this topic? 

 

How can one make an argument RE: Taxation in America, w/o also considering Representation?

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

Have can one make an argument RE: Taxation in America, w/o also considering Representation?

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Not taking the bait. The fact that you can't move along tells me a lot about you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Not taking the bait. The fact that you can't move along tells me a lot about you. 

 

The fact that you keep your argument in a disingenuous and vacuous academic bubble tells me a lot about you.

 

Coward.

 

How can one make an argument RE: Taxation in America, w/o also considering Representation?

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

The fact that you keep your argument in a disingenuous and vacuous academic bubble tells me a lot about you.

 

Coward.

 

Have can one make an argument RE: Taxation in America, w/o also considering Representation?

 

If a Wealthy person should be Taxed proportionally...?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to Vote proportionally.

 

Fair's fair?

Persistence does not equal quality. It just tells me that you are desperate for affirmation. I have played your pointless and disingenuous game before. A rational person does not engage in battles that have no value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...