Consumption tax

Voice said:
I gave you the why a 30% sales tax is a bad idea for dummies version. I thought it would be all you can handle. I did suggest some homework, but you decided on a stupid reply instead. Now I am positive you never attended U of M. You’re just a Walmart wolverine.
Click to expand...
You are right, I bow down to your intellectual superiority!!
Thank God we have you leftists to keep us on our toes.
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
Incorrect. "anybody making under 400 thousand dollars a year will not pay a single penny in taxes"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1389271701352075265
Click to expand...

Nope!​

Tax Increases Biden Has Proposed​

1. Increasing top tax rates for individuals. The top bracket for individuals was 39.6% for many years, until Trump and a cooperative Congress lowered it to 37% starting in 2018. But President Biden wants it back up, from 37% to 39.6%. The 2.6% rate hike would kick in at $450k for joint filers and $400k for single taxpayers.

www.forbes.com

6 Tax Increases Biden Has Proposed

One of the biggest changes the President hopes to make would be tax on death. The proposal is to repeal step up in basis. For generations, everyone gets a step up in basis for income tax purposes when they die. But the President wants to repeal it.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Voice said:
He actually said nobody who makes under 400k would pay more taxes. He proposed a tax cut for this group and a minimum tax for tax cheating billionaires but the Republicans declined.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but since he’s a lying sack of crap, nothing he said makes any difference today. Especially when you idiots don’t hold him accountable, and vote for the next doofus they run up the flag pole with a D after his name.
 
Voice said:
Oversimplified and wildly exaggerated. It would be a huge shift of tax burden to the poor and middle class. But if your interested in learning, look up value added tax.
Click to expand...
Simple is a good outcome. Have you seen the current tax code in print? There isn’t a single person alive that understands it. Not one.

What’s wildly exaggerated? Have you been to FairTax.Org?

Here’s betting you can’t grasp the outcome of the federal government losing its power and control over The People. That’s why it’ll never pass...can’t give control back after decades of gaining more and more power through the most complex tax code ever devised.
 
OldSoulon said:
Just think of the revenue a consumption tax would capture, since criminals, drug cartels, and illegals would all be paying tax where they don’t right now.
Click to expand...
How about legalizing drugs and eliminating the need for cartels? After all, that’s the libertarian way. Consumption tax has already been discussed and debunked. Catch up.
 
Voice said:
How about legalizing drugs and eliminating the need for cartels? After all, that’s the libertarian way. Consumption tax has already been discussed and debunked. Catch up.
Click to expand...
So has socialism but here you are..
 
Yappi said:
I'm for a consumption tax if there are no loopholes. You buy stock in a company, you pay a sales tax. You buy a home, you pay a sales tax. You buy a car, you pay a sales tax. You buy a Van Gough painting, you pay a sales tax. Every...Single...Purchase is taxed. No exceptions. Every new item is taxed. Every used item is taxed. Every food item is taxed. Every item purchased by a business to resell is taxed. You buy a ticket from the Browns for a football game, you pay a sales tax. You buy a ticket from a scalper, you pay a sales tax.

Personally, I don't think it is feasible to do it this way because everyone will be screaming for their loophole. That will doom the system.
Click to expand...
I am strongly anti consumption tax.

1- such a tax penalizes spending therefore would tend to retard the economy vs write offs that encourage spending accelerate the economy.
2- less control over direction government wants to steer the population towards. When a new technology is introduced that Congress deems worothy of implementation, they often offer tax breaks. Such as this year there are tax breaks for installing high efficiency solid fuel stoves and biomass burners. I bought a new stove this year largely because of the tax deduction that went with it. If I had been taxed to do it instead of reduced tax to do it I would have stuck with the old stove.
3- university studies have shown sales of homes and other large ticket items would slow greatly. You would think twice about moving every 5 years if a large consumption tax was levied each time you moved. That would make free flow of housing less likely.

In summation, we would likely benefit our posterity by consuming less, leaving more for them, but our standard of living would greatly decline. Being in the repair industry would be the place to work, as people refused to upgrade vehicles and large ticket items over saving tax.
 
D4fan said:
I am strongly anti consumption tax.

1- such a tax penalizes spending therefore would tend to retard the economy vs write offs that encourage spending accelerate the economy.
2- less control over direction government wants to steer the population towards. When a new technology is introduced that Congress deems worothy of implementation, they often offer tax breaks. Such as this year there are tax breaks for installing high efficiency solid fuel stoves and biomass burners. I bought a new stove this year largely because of the tax deduction that went with it. If I had been taxed to do it instead of reduced tax to do it I would have stuck with the old stove.
3- university studies have shown sales of homes and other large ticket items would slow greatly. You would think twice about moving every 5 years if a large consumption tax was levied each time you moved. That would make free flow of housing less likely.

In summation, we would likely benefit our posterity by consuming less, leaving more for them, but our standard of living would greatly decline. Being in the repair industry would be the place to work, as people refused to upgrade vehicles and large ticket items over saving tax.
Click to expand...
Govt. should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, markets should. I am all for a consumption tax or a flat tax.
 
Stirred not Shaken said:
Govt. should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, markets should. I am all for a consumption tax or a flat tax.
Click to expand...
In Stark County the sales tax is 6.5%. So you are advocating my tax on everything I buy be 36.5%, or more than a 3rd of the original purchase price?

Sounds like a good way to slow down the economy.
 
Stirred not Shaken said:
Govt. should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, markets should. I am all for a consumption tax or a flat tax.
Click to expand...
I agree on not picking winners and losers so far as individual companies. But encouraging consumption to drift a certain way is not a bad idea in some cases.

You disagree with tax breaks for solar to help stimulate increased renewable energy consumption?
 
y2h said:
In Stark County the sales tax is 6.5%. So you are advocating my tax on everything I buy be 36.5%, or more than a 3rd of the original purchase price?

Sounds like a good way to slow down the economy.
Click to expand...
But you will pay no Federal tax, and several others.
 
y2h said:
In Stark County the sales tax is 6.5%. So you are advocating my tax on everything I buy be 36.5%, or more than a 3rd of the original purchase price?

Sounds like a good way to slow down the economy.
Click to expand...
When the FairTax was first proposed, they were thinking it should be around 17%. I'm not sure how it got to 30%, but it's likely a function of the feds spending trillions more each and every year, so there's got to be more funds to fuel the beast.

Take a look at your paycheck and see how much goes to the feds via the income tax and FICA (don't forget to add-in the additional hidden 6.2% FICA tax your employer matches that you never see). It goes away as well. Since Americans don't write checks for these hideous amounts, we aren't shocked by the enormity.

While I'm all-in for the FairTax, I don't believe 30% is sell-able, so they need to cut federal spending....hahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaahahaaa
 
D4fan said:
I agree on not picking winners and losers so far as individual companies. But encouraging consumption to drift a certain way is not a bad idea in some cases.

You disagree with tax breaks for solar to help stimulate increased renewable energy consumption?
Click to expand...
Go ask the Jerrys how great renewable energy is working or not working.
 
I retire and only consume. Why is this good for me? I've been frugal to get to this point. Now the rules change? Am I missing something? I have to collect tax from my renters? Property purchases have a 30% tax? My savings just took a huge hit. Vacations cost 30% more. Am I missing something?
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
I retire and only consume. Why is this good for me? I've been frugal to get to this point. Now the rules change? Am I missing something? I have to collect tax from my renters? Property purchases have a 30% tax? My savings just took a huge hit. Vacations cost 30% more. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
No, that's the way it will work. Fortunately, when you retire you probably already have your home, and a couple good cars, and all the clothes you will ever need. But, that tax on the food system from the farmer to the table is going to really suck. Tax each step @30% , I bet a lot of items get steps of a process taken over by one entity. That would be the competitive advantage, our company does steps 1-17 all as one transaction saving the 30% hit on taxes at every stop.

You would see general contractors spring up who did 100% of the work in house so that the final bill only had 1 30% tax. That would certainly kill the competition who taxed the framing, concrete, plumbing, electric, HVAC, drywall, flooring, cabinets, siding , roofing all seperate. On a $500,000 home all those subs being taxed at $30% on $425,000 (general gets $75,000 for their work) would be $127,500 in tax (not including the taxes those subs would pay for their materials meaning they would have to charge more) added before the general finally sells you the house . So at the minimum that $500,000 house becomes $500,000 +127,500= $627,500 @30% = $188,250 tax. $627,000 plus $188,250 = $815,750.

Of course you really won't get it that cheap as every step prior to your subs purchasing their materials will also contain the 30% increases. So I would be willing to bet homes would be about double what they are now.

Remember Hillary's VAT (value added tax) of the 1990's? Same problem would have occurred with that, inflation of 20-30% would be common.

Imagine how broke Medicare /Medicaid would be getting hit with all those 30% tax rate on healthcare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top