23% sales tax; no fed. income tax

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about a luxury tax? A certain amount of every product is untaxed and anything over that is taxed at 23%. So any car you buy isn't taxed on the first $8,000 but anything beyond there is taxed at 23%. Seems that would accomplish the goal of replacing income tax more effectively.

Dude: just kidding....but what kind of car will you be buying for 8 grand?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Dude: just kidding....but what kind of car will you be buying for 8 grand?

no, he said the first 8 would be exempt. so if you bought a 30 k car, you'd be taxed on 22k.

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Dude: just kidding....but what kind of car will you be buying for 8 grand?

A used car. Nothing wrong with that.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

A used car. Nothing wrong with that.

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

i agree that cost of living should be factored in. 20k here in arkansas goes a lot further than 20k in new york or california.

[randallscott35]

Flat taxes aren't a terrible idea, the key is not allowing people to get around the tax. The IRS wouldn't need to be disbanded, their role would have to change.

Consumption taxes are not a new idea. The thought of putting a dollar tax on gas right now in order to push conservation and actually lowering overall oil prices would probably work. It is those kinds of taxes which need to be enacted first.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i agree that cost of living should be factored in. 20k here in arkansas goes a lot further than 20k in new york or california.

Zeig: How much IS moonshine in Arkansas?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

A very complicated issue...what would a drastic increase in sales taxes do to the economy? It would encourage folks to spend less...good for the folks doing the saving but rough on employment I suspect...less stuff bought=fewer jobs. A graduated income tax seems the only fair way but it's complicated. If we do as suggested and not tax the first $25,000 would that be fair? Of course not cause if I make $25,000 a year living in rural America as a single person, I'm in a very different spot than if I make the same while living in NYC with a wife and four kids. I think the best answer is to increase the amount not taxed using a formula that takes into account cost of living and number of dependents...the key point being that the tax exempt figure must be higher! Say, the first $40,000 baseline. Then increase the % paid by the rich to a point where 90-95% is taken! That will never happen of course...but bottom line, there is a point where folks really don't need any more income! Bill Gates seems to be a nice guy...but he doesn't need $180 billion dollars or whatever! The little child going to bed hungry needs a little tiny piece of that pie a whole lot more!!

Bill Gates would not have to pay much in taxes even if they did raise his tax rate to 95%. Most of his money is in stock. You don't have to pay any tax on that until you sell the stock. So even if his stock appreciates by $5 billion a year, he wouldn't have to pay any taxes on that until he sells the stock. He may never sell it. When he dies, he may actually leave the stock to charity. In that way, the charity would receive more money. Let's say he planned on leaving the money to charity. If he had $40 billion in stock and he sold the stock, he would have to pay $20 billion in taxes and the other $20 billion would go to charity. If he did not sell the stock, but gave the stock to the charity, then the charity would get the whole $40 billion.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Bill Gates would not have to pay much in taxes even if they did raise his tax rate to 95%. Most of his money is in stock. You don't have to pay any tax on that until you sell the stock. So even if his stock appreciates by $5 billion a year, he wouldn't have to pay any taxes on that until he sells the stock. He may never sell it. When he dies, he may actually leave the stock to charity. In that way, the charity would receive more money. Let's say he planned on leaving the money to charity. If he had $40 billion in stock and he sold the stock, he would have to pay $20 billion in taxes and the other $20 billion would go to charity. If he did not sell the stock, but gave the stock to the charity, then the charity would get the whole $40 billion.

All this commentary simply dances around the issue...my point (my only point) is that all people are connected and that which harms one harms us all, I said at the outset that equal distribution of wealth will probably never happen...goes against the greedy nature of man....but it should! In my perfect world...Gates wouldn't have all that stock so that's a moot point. Someone asked who determines how much is too much? The obvious (and only) answer is...each one of us. This crazy idea that life is about who gets the most is so counterproductive...you can live in a solid gold mansion on a hill...but if one day the peasants riot and burn it down with you inside, well.. are you better off than if you had a comfortable dwelling and there were no rich folks and peasants, just people sharing what certainly is more than enough to go around? As long as people delude themselves into believing that they DESERVE more than the next guy, we will never have peace...or real freedom. The rich work hard? Some certainly have...but ever hear Dylan's song, Hollis Brown? There are folks who have nothing but have worked hard all their lives, 50 years in the fields from sunup to sundown only to lose everything to sickness, natural disaster, or some greedy bastard stealing it. Fair? What is fair? Again, to quote a Dylan song..."steal a little and they call you thief, steal a lot and they make you king"!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

All this commentary simply dances around the issue...my point (my only point) is that all people are connected and that which harms one harms us all, I said at the outset that equal distribution of wealth will probably never happen...goes against the greedy nature of man....but it should! In my perfect world...Gates wouldn't have all that stock so that's a moot point. Someone asked who determines how much is too much? The obvious (and only) answer is...each one of us. This crazy idea that life is about who gets the most is so counterproductive...you can live in a solid gold mansion on a hill...but if one day the peasants riot and burn it down with you inside, well.. are you better off than if you had a comfortable dwelling and there were no rich folks and peasants, just people sharing what certainly is more than enough to go around? As long as people delude themselves into believing that they DESERVE more than the next guy, we will never have peace...or real freedom. The rich work hard? Some certainly have...but ever hear Dylan's song, Hollis Brown? There are folks who have nothing but have worked hard all their lives, 50 years in the fields from sunup to sundown only to lose everything to sickness, natural disaster, or some greedy bastard stealing it. Fair? What is fair? Again, to quote a Dylan song..."steal a little and they call you thief, steal a lot and they make you king"!

You said in another post that communism is not bad. Communism is terrible. Even if you had a communist nation that went exactly by the book, it would be terrible. If everyone was going to make the same amount of money and nobody could live in a house bigger than 1,500 sq. feet, there would be no incentive to work hard. What do you think drives people? This country would be totally ruined. It is the capitalist environment that produces a genius like Steve Jobs. There wouldn't be people like Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet if we had communism here. Why would these guys work their butts off 16 hours a day if they could make the same amount of money being a waiter. People like Buffet and Jobs create tens of thousands of jobs. Our country would be in big trouble if we didn't have people like them, and I don't think we would have people like them if we had communism here. The productivity of the country would go straight downhill if we had communism because nobody would have any incentive to work hard.

I think there would be way more poverty here if we had communism, even if it was communism in its most pristine state with no corruption. Communism doesn't sound that bad in theory but when you really think about it, you realize how terrible it would be.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You said in another post that communism is not bad. Communism is terrible. Even if you had a communist nation that went exactly by the book, it would be terrible. If everyone was going to make the same amount of money and nobody could live in a house bigger than 1,500 sq. feet, there would be no incentive to work hard. What do you think drives people? This country would be totally ruined. It is the capitalist environment that produces a genius like Steve Jobs. There wouldn't be people like Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet if we had communism here. Why would these guys work their butts off 16 hours a day if they could make the same amount of money being a waiter. People like Buffet and Jobs create tens of thousands of jobs. Our country would be in big trouble if we didn't have people like them, and I don't think we would have people like them if we had communism here. The productivity of the country would go straight downhill if we had communism because nobody would have any incentive to work hard.

I think there would be way more poverty here if we had communism, even if it was communism in its most pristine state with no corruption. Communism doesn't sound that bad in theory but when you really think about it, you realize how terrible it would be.

Another argument that ignores my point...why would people work hard if not to acquire wealth? That's the genius of capitalism, it flowers from the darker aspects of the human mind where self-serving greed abounds and blocks out the light of community and brotherhood (how's that for overstated and flowery prose?)...in all seriousness though, it is accurate albeit a bit self-indulgent. Again, back to basics...we are taught from birth on that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions...wealth and power. I believe that a successful life is otherwise measured therefore I view wealth and power as tools to be shared. Communism is a word...a term coined by a bunch of old men, it's meaningless. A society where everyone has an equal share may someday actually evolve...I'm not holding my breath. But anyway, to answer the question...people may someday work hard to build a better, safer , kinder world for everyone...realizing that "everyone" includes them!

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Dude: just kidding....but what kind of car will you be buying for 8 grand?

Yeah, it isn't like if you buy a car for $8,001 you are suddenly getting taxed for 23% on all of it. You'd just get taxed 23 cents for that one dollar past $8,000. So a $15,000 car would cost you $1610 in sales tax as opposed to $1200 if the full price was taxed at 8 percent. A small difference if you are getting relief on income tax. The people buying $100,000 vehicles would be the ones getting hit by it as that would cost $21,160 in taxes rather than $8,000.

It might keep people from buying stuff they cant afford...

OH NO. That would ruin an economy that already runs on a huge deficit.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by pgardn

It might keep people from buying stuff they cant afford...

OH NO. That would ruin an economy that already runs on a huge deficit.

Nah, they'll just buy more smaller items to make up for it. Instead of the poor people that blow their money on a 53 inch TV they'll buy four 27 inchers for their living room to avoid the tax.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Nah, they'll just buy more smaller items to make up for it. Instead of the poor people that blow their money on a 53 inch TV they'll buy four 27 inchers for their living room to avoid the tax.

Sniper: That's an ugly thought!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Yeah, it isn't like if you buy a car for $8,001 you are suddenly getting taxed for 23% on all of it. You'd just get taxed 23 cents for that one dollar past $8,000. So a $15,000 car would cost you $1610 in sales tax as opposed to $1200 if the full price was taxed at 8 percent. A small difference if you are getting relief on income tax. The people buying $100,000 vehicles would be the ones getting hit by it as that would cost $21,160 in taxes rather than $8,000.

Damn! I really wanted that Porshe Cayenne in candy apple red(no midlife crisis here)

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Damn! I really wanted that Porshe Cayenne in candy apple red(no midlife crisis here)

Not to make light of such a serious post, but it costs a SHIAT TON to do the brakes on those suckers!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Not to make light of such a serious post, but it costs a SHIAT TON to do the brakes on those suckers!

EXACTLY the reason I don't have one!