If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
But should taxation really be based on income? I've often wondered if a consumption tax wouldn't be a little more equitable. Sort of do away with income tax and create a type of sales tax to replace it. If I make a good living but save like crazy for things like my kids' college fund and retirement, should I have a similar burden to someone else with the same income and no family obligations but who has all the latest toys? Eliminate the loopholes, simplify the system, and do the math to determine what % of consumption tax would work. Then likely eliminate 80% of the current beaucracy that has to deal with making our current tax system work. I'm thinking out loud here so don't ask me for any facts or figures since I don't have any, but just presenting another avenue of discourse.
__________________ "A man who wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough." -Gus McCrae carpe di mawnkie
I am an accountant...must be why I retired at 42 to become a full time Dad to my two children under 10...Currently I am involved in a non-profit...where our admin costs are less than 8 % of the gross...the money is going to the people who truly need it...Some of us Jim, have a MUCH better handle on this than you realize...
I have about thirty years of managing or consulting to nonprofits, including years as the CFO of a ten million dollar indigent health provider, and stints as CAO, COO and CEO of others. These companies ranged from 3/4 of a million to 14 million in annual revenues. When I was CFO, I also managed the finances for the seven subsidiaries including one that was a profit company. These companies served people with severe mental illness, victims of trauma, homeless kids and abused and neglected kids. I'm hardly as uninformed as you'd like to guess.
It was actually the lifetime accumulation of sad stories that make me recently move on to teaching. I wanted to provide a service to people who didn't have a sad story.
Frankly, I think running a nonprofit is much harder than running a profit business. So why don't you just reveal the real story? I'm a big fan of the nonprofit sector. What do they do? What do you do? I'm wondering if they agree with the idea that the poor are responsible for our tax rate?
But should taxation really be based on income? I've often wondered if a consumption tax wouldn't be a little more equitable. Sort of do away with income tax and create a type of sales tax to replace it. If I make a good living but save like crazy for things like my kids' college fund and retirement, should I have a similar burden to someone else with the same income and no family obligations but who has all the latest toys? Eliminate the loopholes, simplify the system, and do the math to determine what % of consumption tax would work. Then likely eliminate 80% of the current beaucracy that has to deal with making our current tax system work. I'm thinking out loud here so don't ask me for any facts or figures since I don't have any, but just presenting another avenue of discourse.
This idea is popular too, but collecting sales tax has a huge cost. And a consumption tax falls more heavily on people who don't have any excess revenue and must spend every dime they make, every month. It's regressive in this way.
Yeah, true. They've been trying to introduce user fees in general aviation, but not decrease your other tax burdens. As a pilot this would have been horrible for me. Flying is expensive enough as it is and luckily for now it's not gonna happen. Most likely to occur in the future though. Currently it is just another extra avenue for revenue, but I was refering to it more as a replacement. It's just how you define it. Like you said earlier though, the collection can be quite burdensome. One thing I think would be interesting though is that people would more readily see how much they actually give to the government. Most people think their refund is some sort of free money at the end of the year, not realizing it was theirs in the first place.
Do you not believe that by placing a higher burden of taxes on the people/families making between 60 and 150K per year you are actually discouraging people from finishing college and become prosperous??
No.
We're discussing a flat tax or a progessive tax with a lower rate and no deductions, although I would support an exemption for income below a poverty income. I am not advocating failing to pay tax obligations.
__________________ There no need to ascribe to conspiracy that which can be attributed to indifference.
This idea is popular too, but collecting sales tax has a huge cost. And a consumption tax falls more heavily on people who don't have any excess revenue and must spend every dime they make, every month. It's regressive in this way.
I may misspeak, because it has been a while since I read this. One idea to eliminate this was to give a sort of pre refund (if this makes sense) at the beginning of every month. Something along this line of thinking:
A family now that pays no taxes (because of EIC or whatever) must spend at least x amount of dollars. The taxes on this would be y amount of dollars. To offset this, everyone gets a pre refund of y dollars. Those who are barely getting by would spend the bare min to get by, and this y dollars would mean the did not actually pay any taxes. Those of us who have much more and spend much more would pay much more in taxes.
Along those lines, I would not be taxed on what I saved for retirement or kids college fund, etc, but truly on what I consumed.
I may misspeak, because it has been a while since I read this. One idea to eliminate this was to give a sort of pre refund (if this makes sense) at the beginning of every month. Something along this line of thinking:
A family now that pays no taxes (because of EIC or whatever) must spend at least x amount of dollars. The taxes on this would be y amount of dollars. To offset this, everyone gets a pre refund of y dollars. Those who are barely getting by would spend the bare min to get by, and this y dollars would mean the did not actually pay any taxes. Those of us who have much more and spend much more would pay much more in taxes.
Along those lines, I would not be taxed on what I saved for retirement or kids college fund, etc, but truly on what I consumed.
You could certainly have a consumption plan that works and is not regressive. It's just that -- like all tax plans -- its the details that matter.
I may misspeak, because it has been a while since I read this. One idea to eliminate this was to give a sort of pre refund (if this makes sense) at the beginning of every month.
How would a plan with a monthly "refund" reduce administrative costs?
I'm not as optimistic as Jim on a consumption tax being designed that is not regressive nor manageable.
__________________ There no need to ascribe to conspiracy that which can be attributed to indifference.
How would a plan with a monthly "refund" reduce administrative costs?
I'm not as optimistic as Jim on a consumption tax being designed that is not regressive nor manageable.
In theory. I'm perfectly in agreeement that a consumption tax, if instituted, would be intended to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. I'm just saying that it could be done. Well, in theory.
How would a plan with a monthly "refund" reduce administrative costs?
I'm not as optimistic as Jim on a consumption tax being designed that is not regressive nor manageable.
It would reduce administrative costs because all taxpayers get that same amount mailed to them. Nothing to file proving any income or anything. You would start actually paying tax when you spend above this amount.
How about NO tax. Most of your money that you pay in taxes doesn't go to pay for anything anyway. Where is goes is to service interest payments on the massive federal debt. In other words it goes straight into the pockets of bankers who created this debt out of thin air. Almost all government services are financed through debt. Since government debt keeps getting bigger and bigger every year eventually one of two things are going to happen. Your taxes will keep going up until it eats away almost all of your income to service these interest payments (payments to bankers who didnt do anything but add an asset to their ledger), or there will be a government default. Since no one can live unless they can buy food and have shelter, a 100 percent tax on income isn't going to work, therefore default will be necessary and inevitable. Discussing HOW (income tax, flat tax, sales tax) we should be taxed instead of WHY we should be taxed in the first place detracts from understanding the nature of the problem.
__________________
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
-Noam Chomsky
