There are more of them than us, or soon will be!!!!

[skarke]

47% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax.  Almost half of those qualify for the EITC (basically, welfare apportioned through tax code).  Of those that do pay taxes, nearly 60% of all Federal Income Tax burden falls on just 5% of tax payers.

Why do we think that people would vote for representation that will result in increasing their exposure to tax?  They won't.  The more lopsided the tax code becomes, the greater the number of people will be who vote for those promising to shift tax liability to "the other guy".

It is a self-perpetuating cycle.  Soon, we'll have 60% exempt, then 70%, and so on, until the giant sucking sound of capital moving out of the country will become silent.  There will be nothing left.

It is, IMO, immoral to have NO skin in the game regarding tax exposure.  Even if it is 1%, people aught to feel the effects of taxation on behavior and attitude.

I never was employed by a poor man.

[Dixie Dude]

Now they are pushing a VAT tax or Sales Tax.  This wouldn't be so bad, IF they eliminated income tax.  Corporations would pay the most since they are bigger, buy more, and build more.  Rich would pay more since they buy more, and buy more expensive things, like yatches, second homes, expensive cars, etc.  Therein lies the IF.  Also, IF corporations don't pay income tax, they might come back home. 

[skarke]

I'm for the proposed 15% federal sales tax (less than the 23% "Fair Tax" proposal, but the same type of program, I just want a much smaller Federal government), and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment.  I'm also for a balanced budget Amendment, and an establishment of a fund equaling 10% of annual federal budget for a rainy day.

In Dan's America, we'd have a whole lot more people pulling the wagon than are now, and under my plan, the tax burden would be a flat rate.  If you buy something, to pay tax for it.

[Dee]

I think the idea of doing away with the IRS, and income tax is a pistol of an idea, and replace it with a flat tax. If you buy something, it's taxed. Then everyone pays tax. Even the welfare boys when they go to the liqour store for their Budweiser, and Mad Dog 2020.

[DDZ]

Don't forget the Boone's Farm strawberry hill.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that will be the end of our country as we know it. This once great nation will no longer exist, since voters have discovered that they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. 

There will come a time when the takers will out number the givers. 

[Dee]

Well DDZ I expect you are correct on the takers, but make no mistake, that at my house they'll damn sure have to take it. I'm too old to run.

[Dixie Dude]

This is exactly what happened to the Soviet Union. 

[MGMorden]

Even the welfare boys when they go to the liqour store for their Budweiser, and Mad Dog 2020.

A) Budweiser and Mad Dog 20/20 aren't typically sold at liquor stores.  Most state laws require that spirits (liquor) be sole at a separate venue from beer (Budweiser) and fortified wines (Mad Dog).

B) Spirits, aka the goods at the liquor stores, are some of the most heavily taxed items in existence.  The tax is already reflected in the marked prices, since it's by volume rather than by price, but depending on the price you're paying (particularly the cheap stuff) taxes on liquor can easily reach 25-40% (this is the real reason why the government doesn't allow home distilling even in modern times when it's relatively easy to do safely).  Everyone who shops at the liquor store is paying through the nose in taxes already.

Not saying I disagree with a flat tax, just pointing out a few quips.  Well, kinda.  If they do away with property taxes then I'd technically be out of a job (I work with computer systems built to calculate and bill property taxes ), but without that bias I don't have a problem with flat tax.  Realistically though, it'd likely be a LOT higher than 15%.  If it was the only tax we were paying, I'd fully expect such a tax to be more in the realm of 25-30%.

All of it runs into problems though.  Shift to sales only tax and a recession would REALLY cripple the government.  When the economy gets in trouble, people tend to stop spending money on all but the necessities.  When all government income is based on spending, the population having a tight purse becomes a problem.  You also run into a problem with high income individuals who tend to sit on their money.  Someone earning billions per year who spends little of it would be paying a pittance in taxes, as the majority of their income is stagnating, not stimulating the economy nor tax base. 

Truthfully, I have no problem with a flat INCOME tax if we actually went through and either fully embraced deportation OR amnesty with full documentation moving forward (ie, I don't care if we let the illegals stay or kick them out, but either way we need to get to only employing fully documented and legal workers).  Flat income tax would be just that though - flat.  No deductions, no EIC, etc.  Every pays a flat percentage and thats that.

[Dee]

Well MGMorden you can walk in a liquor store here and pick up your MD2020 and your Bud, and understand that our welfare buddies aren't paying the tax on the beer and wine, me and you are. Their welfare check is free to them, but not to us.
If doing away with property taxes also does away with your job, so be it. I hate to be cold, but I shouldn't be taxed to own something I've already paid taxes on for 25 years. Now as far as the government being crippled, I think that's a pistol of an idea, and as far as folks sittin on their money, that's their business as they are the ones that earned it.

[The Hermit]

Up in the great state of NY, pun intended, we will pay your housing, give you a cell phone(prepaid), and a food benefit card. You use the phone to call your dealer and order your drugs/alcohol. Then you take your benefit card to the grocery store and get $150 worth of groceries and have your friend, who gets the groceries, give you $75 cash to pay for your booze. Oh and ya, you gotta promise to look for work, unless you have a back ache or are certifed stupid. If you are stupid, then we will give you a cash voucher too. Then when you fail your drug test, we will pay for rehab too. Oh by the way, you don't have to pay any taxes on anything either, no deductible for your healthcare either.
What's next??  Room service??
We just can't afford this charade anymore regardless of which tax system is used.


   The Hermit

[skarke]

McMorden,

I understand the challenges of cyclical spending, and how economic downturns can challenge government budgets in a sales tax system.  That said, spending rarely drops by 10 % even in severe recession.  This is why governments during a period of economic expansion should establish a rainy day fund that is only accessible during recession.

Regarding percentage tax, you and I likely have a differing view of the role of government.  I also do not want the "federal" government (we really don't have a fereration of States anymore; rather, we have an uber-powerful national government, with all of its centralized, top down authoritarian rule) to be that powerful.

Basically, common defense, interstate trade, things like these should be the majority of Washington's role.  Everything else should be left to the States, individually, to establish the role of government at that level.  Governments should be free to tighten their belts just like we little people.

[MGMorden]

Basically, common defense, interstate trade, things like these should be the majority of Washington's role.  Everything else should be left to the States, individually, to establish the role of government at that level.  Governments should be free to tighten their belts just like we little people.

That's fine, but understand that if you break apart and segregate responsibilities like that then you by necessity are going to go back down the road of complicating the tax system.  The reason why we have such varied tax laws is that each agency taxes as they see fit.  The Federal government derives their tax revenue from income tax.  That's the only tax they currently levy. Sales and property taxes are more locally oriented.  Some states and local government charge either of those or a mix of the two, but it varies in each location.  Here in SC, the state pulls income tax, and has a sales tax.  The individual counties levy property taxes - some also tack on a small amount to the sales tax (the county where I'm at for example has an extra penny on the dollar sales tax added to the state sales tax, but those funds are earmarked for road improvements only).

That's the ugly truth of grand ideas - they're easy to armchair quarterback and say "Wouldn't it be nice if . . .", but to actually IMPLEMENT them is much more complicated.  If you say "Everyone should pay just a flat tax.", then you have to either accept that one central authority is going to implement, regulate, and distribute that tax - that central authority being some wing of the Federal government, or the authority will fall back to the states in which case we'll all still have to pay SOME level of tax to the Federal government and the states will each tax an amount and by a method of their choosing - meaning the whole idea of a universal "flat tax" is gone.

[WylieKy]

Yeah, the problem with the flat sales tax is that while the wealthy spend more, they are also able to horde a higher % of their earnings. A family making $75,000.00 a year might save $5-6,000 if they're very, very liquid.  Most would be in the 0-3K range.  A family making $10,000,000.00 a year would probably be able to save $8,500,000 of that.

Now a flat income tax is more like it.

[skarke]

MGMorden,

I respectfully disagree.  For instance, if Texas wants to offer fewer Govt services than, say, Kalifornia, then so be it.  If businesses and earners want to relocate to a State with lower Tax burden, that's what makes the world competitive.  What'll happen is that producers will congregate in Texas, and Kalifornia will be filled with consumers of Govt services.

Oh. wait, that's already happening

Texas produced more new jobs during this recession than any other State, even adjusted for population.

What I really want is the Churches to have an opportunity for charity, people with the gift of giving to be able to do so, and the Government to be much smaller at all levels, especially our National government.  Large government is like cancer, an excellent way to kill it is to cut off its blood supply.  Money is analogous to blood in this example.