Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 98
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Sales taxes are not more regressive than income taxes.

  1. #51
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500
    Thanks
    59

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    How does cutting taxes on businesses that currently retired people do not pay anything for from their benefits, and replacing it with a sales tax that they will pay every time they buy toilet paper...how does that NOT impact the purchase power of retiree's savings, and not just social security?

    You have simply stated the exact opposite of the truth, obviously. You may as well tell me cancer is good for me. That's how obviously silly this is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    StanStill, yes you're correct, it's like saying "it's only regressive if you are poor".
    But the majority of the poor are Social Security beneficiaries, or the working-poor, or their dependents.

    Social Security beneficiaries are shielded by cost-of-living-adjustments. The majority of the remaining poor are employees and their dependents that are are statistically entirely dependent upon wages subject to FICA taxes.
    Referring to this thread's first post, “FICA and SECA taxes levied only upon the wage portions of individuals' incomes are the most severe federal taxes impacting the working-poor and their dependents. I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportion of taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax”.

    Refer to post #8 of :
    The FICA payroll tax is the most regressive federal tax

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Splansing, the accounting ain't rocket science. You can't find the fault in the accounting that supports your criticism? Maybe some other poster can assist you?
    Respectfully, Supposn

  2. #52
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    In exchange for becoming tax collectors for the federal government, they will get to keep a percent of the fairtax collected.
    I've got a better idea. Let's just cancel the Constitution and the entire government, and replace it with a parent corporation led by a board of directors that is elected by the world's corporate leadership. And if you want political or economic representation you can sign up with the company and sign away literally the Bill of Rights as a "voluntary" decision when you take the "job" so that you can survive in the fucking corporatocracy.

    No, that's a terrible idea, actually. Here is a better idea: let's see if we can remember why it is we even have a government at all, what we hope it will do for us, and set it up so it does its job instead of just handing it over to corporate entities that, by their very structure and stated purpose, act as psychopaths in our society on a massive scale.

  3. #53
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    And a rich person who pays even more in income tax will find it to be even more beneficial. A person earning a lot in salary is paying 35% in federal taxes. A person earning very little is paying nothing or close to it.

    The sales tax would flip that over, because it is regressive. Poor people would pay more, rich people would pay less, and then they would keep it, and the government will slowly go fucking broke.
    Which is the prebate is in play to compensate for lower incomes. Raise it high enough to benefit poor people. The government will not go broke because people have to purchase goods and services which provide the revenue that is currently taken from income.

  4. #54
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Splansing, the accounting ain't rocket science. You can't find the fault in the accounting that supports your criticism? Maybe some other poster can assist you?
    I'd rather spend my time trying to prove that the world isn't flat.

  5. #55
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    Which is the prebate is in play to compensate for lower incomes. Raise it high enough to benefit poor people. The government will not go broke because people have to purchase goods and services which provide the revenue that is currently taken from income.
    So as neomalthusian has said, then what's the fucking point? You want to institute a crazy complicated system to try to approximate what we have now? Why?

  6. #56
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    So as neomalthusian has said, then what's the fucking point? You want to institute a crazy complicated system to try to approximate what we have now? Why?
    To maximize take home pay and have it as close to the gross amount as possible. The point is to have more money up front. Which amount is better $3200 gross or $2700 net?
    Last edited by Jets; 20th October 2017 at 09:18 AM.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    So as neomalthusian has said, then what's the fucking point? You want to institute a crazy complicated system to try to approximate what we have now? Why?
    Because it leaves the income of the economic elite untaxed, and bribes the peeps with a promise of a monthly check from the government.
    Last edited by labrea; 20th October 2017 at 10:02 AM.
    Thanks from splansing and OldGaffer

  8. #58
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500
    Thanks
    59

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    So if a sales tax could be dialed such that revenue would not be significantly impacted and there would be no significant change to progressivity/regressivity of federal taxes, what would be the point of revamping the tax structure?
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Salestaxes are not more regressive than income taxes.] … FICA and SECAtaxes levied only upon the wage portions of individuals' incomes arethe most severe federal taxes impacting the working-poor and theirdependents. I'm a proponent for replacing a significant proportionof taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, and replacing those revenues with a general sales tax.

    This
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    proposal would net increase tax revenues for funding Social Security,Medicare, and the purchasing powers of USA employees and theirdependents. The extent of reductions to enterprises' federal taxesare dependent upon the size of their payrolls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Governments collect sales taxes from importers of products into theirjurisdictions and waive those taxes on their exports. This proposal,rather than a reduction of corporate income taxes would greaterreduce price disadvantages of USA competing with foreign products. ...
    Respectfully,Supposn
    Last edited by Supposn; 20th October 2017 at 09:37 AM.

  9. #59
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    To maximize take home pay and have it as close to the gross amount as possible. The point is to have more money up front. Which amount is better $3200 gross or $2700 net?
    I'm with labrea here. It's a ruse designed to trick ignorant people into thinking they're getting more money when in the end they will end up paying much more of their income to taxes than they do now.

    Promising me I can have $100 or I can only have $75 if I pay taxes...without mentioning that my tax bill will go up every time I buy toothpaste until I end up with only $60 of actual buying power..

    What kind of shady shell game are you trying to pull here? What the fuck is in this for you? How can you possibly defend something so obvious by pretending it's something it is not? If you have to lie about it then obviously you know it's wrong. So why are you peddling it?
    Thanks from labrea

  10. #60
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    To maximize take home pay and have it as close to the gross amount as possible. The point is to have more money up front. Which amount is better $3200 gross or $2700 net?
    There is no promise that you would have more money up front, just a little double counting, and leading you to assume that means YOU get to keep all them taxes deducted from your paycheck now.

    Actually, FairTax: The Truth is Boortz's second attempt at damage control. As I pointed out in "The Fraudulent Tax," the paperback edition of The FairTax Book, released in 2006, contained some notable changes that had to be made to correct false statements in the original hardcover release about everyone receiving 100 percent of their paycheck after the adoption of the FairTax. It turned out that the portion of the worker's paycheck formerly withheld and sent to the government as taxes that would be returned to him under a FairTax system that eliminated those taxes, thus allowing the worker to keep 100 percent of his paycheck, was the same portion that producers were going to pocket to help them lower their costs. One of the main selling points of the FairTax was (and is) that prices would fall by roughly the same amount of the new national sales tax to be imposed on all goods and services — thus making everything a wash. But in order for employers to cut their costs enough to be able to lower prices by an amount necessary to offset the FairTax, employees would have to settle for their current take-home pay, not 100 percent of their paycheck.

    ...

    Well, the Americans for Fair Taxation website still makes the claim, Congressman Linder's website still makes the claim, the publisher's press release for Boortz's new FairTax book maintains that "Americans would take home every penny they earn," and the new book makes the claim twice, including a statement on the back cover that the FairTax will enable you "to keep all the money in your paycheck."

    So which is it? After the implementation of the FairTax, do workers get to keep their whole paycheck or do they not? Well, that depends on the generosity of their employer.


    https://mises.org/library/there-stil...ing-fair-tax#1

    So now imagine your take home pay is $2,700, and you still have to pay nearly 30% in tax on every good and service you buy.

    BTW, your prebate check only compensates for spending up to the poverty level for your family size.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 31st March 2015, 01:36 AM
  2. Governors attempting to get rid of state income taxes
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22nd January 2013, 01:07 PM
  3. Romney Says He Paid at Least 13% in Income Taxes
    By MGunner in forum Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 10:50 AM
  4. Bachmann: no corporate income taxes, that's the solution
    By bonncaruso in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 7th September 2011, 01:12 PM
  5. are income taxes legal? let's review.....
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28th September 2008, 10:15 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed