|
Post by fredskinner on Aug 24, 2010 11:22:36 GMT -5
Don't knock the flat tax. Erik promoted it. The US needs it.
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 24, 2010 12:24:47 GMT -5
Don't knock the flat tax. Erik promoted it. The US needs it. The answer isn't the flat tax. It isn't a bad idea but a better one is the national sales tax. Eliminate the income tax completely and the IRS along with it. Spend money, pay tax. Save money, pay no tax. It is a little more complicated than that, but not much more.
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 9:07:13 GMT -5
It is a little more complicated than that at least you got part of it right all the simple-minded tea partiers don't realize that this country is great because there is a progressive tax to keep things in balance. flat and regressive taxation is just another way to increase the chasm between the rich and poor. no thanks. and taxing consumption isn't really that different. if you're earning way more than you'll ever spend, none of it is taxed. certainly this is a rich person's dream come true! sorry for trolling but i am sick of the bs (heaped upon us all daily by those with power and money). engage your brain, and flame on! :-)
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 25, 2010 9:19:51 GMT -5
It is a little more complicated than that at least you got part of it right all the simple-minded tea partiers don't realize that this country is great because there is a progressive tax to keep things in balance. flat and regressive taxation is just another way to increase the chasm between the rich and poor. no thanks. and taxing consumption isn't really that different. if you're earning way more than you'll ever spend, none of it is taxed. certainly this is a rich person's dream come true! sorry for trolling but i am sick of the bs (heaped upon us all daily by those with power and money). engage your brain, and flame on! :-) I hope you didn't study economics at Valpo! ;D
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 9:56:34 GMT -5
at least you got part of it right all the simple-minded tea partiers don't realize that this country is great because there is a progressive tax to keep things in balance. flat and regressive taxation is just another way to increase the chasm between the rich and poor. no thanks. and taxing consumption isn't really that different. if you're earning way more than you'll ever spend, none of it is taxed. certainly this is a rich person's dream come true! sorry for trolling but i am sick of the bs (heaped upon us all daily by those with power and money). engage your brain, and flame on! :-) I hope you didn't study economics at Valpo! ;D and if that's the best argument you have, i hope you didn't study at all! :-) according to several studies, the vast majority of economists in the US support a progressive tax. Here are the references complements of wikipedia... springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/www.amazon.com/Cultural-Context-Economics-Politics/dp/0819196800
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Aug 25, 2010 10:10:35 GMT -5
I'm with moodboom, and I would personally benefit from a flat tax, if I understand it properly.
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 25, 2010 10:15:48 GMT -5
I'm with moodboom, and I would personally benefit from a flat tax, if I understand it properly. I suggested a national sales tax, not a flat tax.
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 10:21:56 GMT -5
I suggested a national sales tax, not a flat tax. Along with abolishing income tax and the IRS. Classic tea party.
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 25, 2010 10:40:38 GMT -5
moodboom--please tell me that you don't think 264 economists represent the "vast majority"! These are obviously very liberal "economists" who favor gun control, public schooling (apparently with no regard to its competency),and no further immigration control . Oh, surprise, surprise, most were democrats! www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/TAX_NATIONAL_SALES.HTM Here is a reasonable analysis of a national sales tax and its effects. As for the poor spending all their money on taxable items, consider what we do here in Minnesota: NO SALES TAX on food or clothing! I personally think we could tax clothing for items costing more than say, $100. Underwear and socks don't run that much. Also, used clothing wouldn't be taxed.
|
|
|
Post by redheadbed on Aug 25, 2010 11:00:07 GMT -5
So, vu72, did you major in Economics at VU, or are you just being condescending to cover yourself?
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 12:23:14 GMT -5
moodboom--please tell me that you don't think 264 economists represent the "vast majority"! These are obviously very liberal "economists" who favor gun control, public schooling (apparently with no regard to its competency),and no further immigration control . Oh, surprise, surprise, most were democrats! www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/TAX_NATIONAL_SALES.HTM Here is a reasonable analysis of a national sales tax and its effects. As for the poor spending all their money on taxable items, consider what we do here in Minnesota: NO SALES TAX on food or clothing! I personally think we could tax clothing for items costing more than say, $100. Underwear and socks don't run that much. Also, used clothing wouldn't be taxed. To you, "reasonable analysis" is a bunch of people arguing on the internet, sigh... But I like your idea of taxing items above a certain reasonable amount. I'm all for it. But with that description, it starts to sound more like a luxury tax. :-) Everything else mentioned on that site shifts the tax burden from the rich to those between the cutoff at the low end and the rich. You're shifting tax burden from the wealthy to the poorer and middle classes. Again, no thank you. And thank you for skimming the summary of the reference. I guess we could argue all day about what economists think. But please don't distort the numbers. "264 economists" responded out of 1000 randomly selected. 81% of those were pro-progressive-tax. It's just basic statistical analysis. Which is certainly better than your internet forum. Internet forums are not the place for enlightened... nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by CO_VU_Fan on Aug 25, 2010 12:51:20 GMT -5
I suggested a national sales tax, not a flat tax. Along with abolishing income tax and the IRS. Classic tea party. Not sure how a national sales tax is classic tea party. I remember in '96 when Sen. Lugar was promoting the national sales tax. I believe he had been promoting it earlier, but had somewhat of a national stage when running in the early primaries. I am also for the national sales tax. All collection would be at point of sale = no IRS. There would need to be provisions for big ticket items like homes or one car every so many years. If you spend less you actually invest more. The money the rich would save in taxes would be invested, not put in mattresses. Whom do you want investing that money - you or the federal government?
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 25, 2010 12:57:02 GMT -5
So, vu72, did you major in Economics at VU, or are you just being condescending to cover yourself? Nope. I had plenty of economics on my way to a major in Finance. Notice that moodboom hasn't naswered the question. Probably a philosophy or urban studies major (sorry, no disrespect to those who have those majors!!)
|
|
|
Post by moodboom on Aug 25, 2010 13:11:19 GMT -5
The money the rich would save in taxes would be invested, not put in mattresses. Whom do you want investing that money - you or the federal government? I'd rather have the federal government have money, for libraries, fire stations, police officers, roads, the internet, fiscal regulation, research grants, the FDA, NIH, NASA, need I go on... Sorry, but "federal government" is not a dirty word to me. I'm a little too patriotic for that. This isn't a very "loungy" discussion tho... i need to go take a nap and chill... :> peace out, all...
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Aug 25, 2010 13:16:47 GMT -5
moodboom--please tell me that you don't think 264 economists represent the "vast majority"! These are obviously very liberal "economists" who favor gun control, public schooling (apparently with no regard to its competency),and no further immigration control . Oh, surprise, surprise, most were democrats! www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/TAX_NATIONAL_SALES.HTM Here is a reasonable analysis of a national sales tax and its effects. As for the poor spending all their money on taxable items, consider what we do here in Minnesota: NO SALES TAX on food or clothing! I personally think we could tax clothing for items costing more than say, $100. Underwear and socks don't run that much. Also, used clothing wouldn't be taxed. To you, "reasonable analysis" is a bunch of people arguing on the internet, sigh... But I like your idea of taxing items above a certain reasonable amount. I'm all for it. But with that description, it starts to sound more like a luxury tax. :-) Everything else mentioned on that site shifts the tax burden from the rich to those between the cutoff at the low end and the rich. You're shifting tax burden from the wealthy to the poorer and middle classes. Again, no thank you. And thank you for skimming the summary of the reference. I guess we could argue all day about what economists think. But please don't distort the numbers. "264 economists" responded out of 1000 randomly selected. 81% of those were pro-progressive-tax. It's just basic statistical analysis. Which is certainly better than your internet forum. Internet forums are not the place for enlightened... nevermind. As posted previously, Sen. Lugar, hardly a "tea party" guy, is a big supporter of the National Sales Tax. Think this through for a moment. If you either give a consumption credit to the poor, or not tax certain items within reasonable levels, how is this putting more pressure on the poor. Perhaps the logic here is that the "poor", if you will, don't pay any income tax now. As for the "rich", do you think they won't spend their money? If they don't, what will they do with it? They will put it in the bank or invest it in the markets. So what does the percieved increase in savings do for our economy? Well, it would drive interest rates lower (if that's possible right now) and increase leading to businesses, many of which are small. What will the businesses do with the money? Expand, hire, buy equipment. What do businesses do with a higher stock value? Many things including paying dividends as well as expansion. Who benefits from dividends and higher stock prices? Retirerees, pensions and others who primarily add to benefits for many, not so rich. One other point. Do you know anyone who works for cash? How about the mafia? Do you think they report their income? How much is lost to this "underground" economy? A bunch. With the NST idea, these people must do something with their money unless they are going to highjack a grocery truck and payoff people with bananas and canned beans.
|
|