Originally posted by sh76So what, Obama has cut back the payroll tax and made sure the "W" tax cuts were left in place.
Romney just promised an across the board 20% tax cut, abolishing the AMT and repealing the estate tax.
I think I'm gonna be sick.
😞
I'm voting for Mickey Mouse in the primary when it comes to New York.
:'(
Mitt, please tell me you're just BS-ing to suck up to the right wing nuts and that you really don't believe that what we need right now is another big tax cut for the rich.
Please, Mitt. Please.
Pretty please.
Really there seems not be much difference between the two. Obama and Romney both will help bankrupt America.
Originally posted by spruce112358Better yet, FAIR tax. Get rid of the unconstitutional income tax altogether, along with the IRS. Everyone pays, including the underground economy. Everyone buys stuff. Nobody needs to keep records, hire accountants and tax preparers, or financial planners. As a bonus, everyone is interested and concerned about spending, going to war, etc. Everyone has "skin in the game".
Flat tax.
FLAAAAAT TAX!
Fl-a-a-a-a-a-t t-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-x!
flattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattaxflattax
Starting to sound pretty good, isn't it? Totally fair. No loopholes. All income taxed at the same rate. Incredibly simple and efficient. Almost impossible to cheat. Rebates below a certain threshold.
Give in to the siren's song!
Originally posted by TerrierJackOnly if they didn't buy anything. Fat chance of that. Consumption simplifies and equalizes based on the simple notion of you buy, you pay. If you are a high earner, what do you do? Shuffle around back alleys searching for black market goods? Please.
And reduces the share that top earners must pay.
Originally posted by kmax87You identify the problem with income taxes. The tax may be flattened, but the fact is that Congress meets every year, and interest groups lobby Congress for favor with regard to taxation, so shelters and loopholes are created for high earners, and lower rates and more EITC for the poor, and the middle class gets hammered.
Don't the top earners avoid paying any tax anyways, and even though they would be contributing less on paper would not a consumption tax actually levvy more out of them?
A consumption tax is pretty transparent, and collected as POS, so people will follow and be informed when Congress tries to tamper and favor various constituencies. People will know when they are paying a tax, and learn to abhor and resist it instead of looking at it as a way to get something for nothing.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHow does that happen? On the one hand the left talks about the excessive consumption of the rich, but somehow, they would spend less of their income to be taxed?
A consumption tax taxes the poor and middle class vastly more than the rich as a percent of income. It would also discourage spending, which hurts the economy.
And if the big earner is thrifty and pays less taxes, is that bad? The income not spent on consumption, would be saved or invested. There are two sides to every economy, consumption and production (demand and supply).
Then there is the matter of incentives.
Originally posted by normbenignThe poor have to spend all their income each month, whereas the rich can sit on most of their holdings and spend just a sliver each month. A consumption tax, therefore, taxes 100% of the poor's earnings and only a sliver of the rich's earnings.
How does that happen? On the one hand the left talks about the excessive consumption of the rich, but somehow, they would spend less of their income to be taxed?
And if the big earner is thrifty and pays less taxes, is that bad? The income not spent on consumption, would be saved or invested. There are two sides to every economy, consumption and production (demand and supply).
Then there is the matter of incentives.
A flat tax is popular among those who can't do math, to be sure.
Originally posted by SoothfastFirst you mistake rich for high earners. One may have previously earned wealth, and not be touched by income taxes. However a consumption tax is collected when money is spent, whether it was earned last year of last decade.
The poor have to spend all their income each month, whereas the rich can sit on most of their holdings and spend just a sliver each month. A consumption tax, therefore, taxes 100% of the poor's earnings and only a sliver of the rich's earnings.
A flat tax is popular among those who can't do math, to be sure.
Second the "poor" are poorly defined in America. Yes some subsist spending all their income, but the majority don't. Except for the uber wealthy, most moderately high income people spend, or invest most of their annual income. Investment is as important as consumption, and consumption taxes don't require invasion into privacy, unproductive hiring of "experts" to minimize taxation, and lobbying for favors.
Originally posted by normbenignOh, and what subversive things are you worried about having on your tax return? You should always pay the call girl with cold hard cash, and never try to deduct the transaction as a business expense!
Investment is as important as consumption, and consumption taxes don't require invasion into privacy, unproductive hiring of "experts" to minimize taxation, and lobbying for favors.
What we need is a more progressive tax scheme, such as was in place in Eisenhower's day, with fewer loopholes and crazy deductions and credits. There are deductions for everything, even the cost of moving to a new job -- and such deductions open up huge loopholes and ways for frauds to make hay.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignReally? Who on the left talks about "excessive consumption" of the rich? LINKS PLEASE.
How does that happen? On the one hand the left talks about the excessive consumption of the rich, but somehow, they would spend less of their income to be taxed?
And if the big earner is thrifty and pays less taxes, is that bad? The income not spent on consumption, would be saved or invested. There are two sides to every economy, consumption and production (demand and supply).
Then there is the matter of incentives.
I'm dying to see these people on the left complaining that the rich spend too much of their money.
Originally posted by normbenignSo whereas an income tax gets collected the instant they earned it, with a consumption tax you must collect it over decades waiting for them to spend it all (which will likely never happen).
First you mistake rich for high earners. One may have previously earned wealth, and not be touched by income taxes. However a consumption tax is collected when money is spent, whether it was earned last year of last decade.
Second the "poor" are poorly defined in America. Yes some subsist spending all their income, but the majority don't. Except fo ...[text shortened]... o privacy, unproductive hiring of "experts" to minimize taxation, and lobbying for favors.
Wonderful job making your opponents point for them.