Zaitsev, since none of those words that you don't like were directed at you, you shouldn't let them bother you either, now should you?


You should have taken the sarcasm tags off that bitch, because it's your punk ass that doesn't read other peoples articles, not me.

Once again, you show your complete stupidity, even when trying to mock.  Asshole.

Alright I was dormant for a few days but I decided to do some research so I could argue bucc's talking points on a national sales tax.

First, lets get one thing straight: some definitions.

Progressive Income Tax - Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases
Regressive Income Tax - Decreasing proportionately as the amount taxed increases

The current system falls under the very definition of a progressive tax. Any changes in tax code away from the current system could be considered regressive. However buccaneer claims that his system would be a paradigm change, so it is necessary to take a step back and look at exactly what the effects of a national sales tax would be on each of America's economic classes.

At first glance one would observe that a sales tax would hurt the poor. However, bucc has proposed that the sales tax would have subsidies for the necessities (probably up to the poverty line). I would suggest that it also has additional surcharges on luxuries to ensure that it is not as regressive as it would be in its bare bones form.

In the criticism I have been reading of consumption taxes, the main point most authors make is that this system will not be superior to our current system because if implemented it will not end up being any simpler. For example, a comprehensive consumption tax would have to tax the implicit rental value of owner occupied housing. There is no simple way to make this sort of assessment. Excluding owner occupied housing from the tax would presumably require excluding rental housing as well, which would mean that one-third of all consumption was being exempted from the tax. Bucc's efforts to ensure some minimal level of fairness in this tax (like subsidies for the poor and luxury taxes for the rich) also guarantee that this code will become long and complicated quickly. Our original graduated income tax was simple when it began too. It will take little time for a new system to equal its largesse.

I've already stated (and received bucc's tacit approval) that a pure consumption tax will hurt the poor. But we are inserting safeguards in this plan to mitigate the regressiveness of the tax. So where will the burden fall? Obviously not on the poor, since we are protecting them. And obviously not on the wealthy, because why would anyone wealthy propose a plan that would increase their tax load? (and with the support of Bush and his counterparts, this is obviously a wealthy man's tax.) All signs seem to indicate the the classicly overlooked middle class will get hit the hardest by the tax. You can't equitably lower a tax burden without greatly reducing revenues or shifting the burden. Those hardest hit would be those that fall just above wherever the line is set for necessity exemptions, probably the 40-50 thousand dollar per year income range. Another group that would be hit hard by this tax is the elderly. They were already taxed when they were young and earning and saving their money, but a new consumption tax would now tax their money again as they spend it. So even if a radical new idea like this did gain some support outside of political and economic circles, you would have America's most powerful interest lobby (The AARP) fighting you on it.

From what I've read about sales, consumption, or value-added taxes (whatever ya wanna call these roughly similar systems) they are not as bad as I initially thought. I don't think that the plans that Bucc or Bush hinted at are really an improvement. There is no "simple solution" to taxes, and there really can't be unless you are willing to alienate most of the country. I believe that it may be possible to form a progressive consumption tax, but I think that it should be a combination of a VAT tax and a "SPLAT" tax, a tax on environmental waste that has been proposed in the economic articles in magazines like Mother Jones and The Nation. However, the currently proposed plan in my view presents no obvious advantage to the current one.
 
Also: Bucc, I would like to see more on why you support this tax. You have done a more than adequate job attacking my previous posts on taxes, yet as I reread this thread I have found little meat on why you support and exactly how it will work, other than the brief overview in your initial post. I want to know in your view who will receive a tax cut from this plan and who will make up the revenue difference.

BTW I would just like to point out I that I find it funny that no one actually defended the Bush tax plan. It speaks well for the general common sense of this group.

Good place to start.


Not quite what I suggested.  Not subsidies.  Some items would simply not be taxed.  Things like unprepared food.  Things like the purchase of your primary residence (but tax any multiple homes).  And no, you don't need to add surcharges on anything.  If say the tax is 15%, I think it's completely fair for the guy that buys a $10000 car to pay $1500 and the guy that buys the $100000 car to pay $15,000 in taxes.  No reason to get greedy or punish anyone.  

A couple underlying ideas of it are used items aren't taxed.  Business to business items aren't taxed.  Eliminating the tax on all but brand new homes and most of the "double taxing" that goes on.


Ah, you added a word and another assumption to it.  Comprehensive.  And, you don't have to tax an owner occupied house, it's already been paid (when the owner purchased it).  This isn't an income tax.  The landlord paid the tax when he bought the place.  So there is no need for that sort of assessment.


You see, I'm not complicating it.  You are.  

First, don't say it's an effort to be fair by subsidies or luxury taxes, as I completely think those are UNFAIR, and have said so.

Second, the only things making this complicated are things that you are trying to add to make it fit your model better.  Some states, like the one I'm in, have already figured this out.  We don't have a different sales tax level for different items or prices.  Just a percentage.  We also have a list of items and groups that are exempt from paying.  It's a real simple process.  

The only "subsidy" you'd see me advocating is that anyone under the defined poverty level (whatever that is year to year) could be exempted (since you wouldn't be cutting out any hard dollars anyway, and it could let them have a little better quality of life while moving up the food chain.


Since all your assumptions were not what I was talking about, I'll repeat flat out how it will help the poor.

If you aren't taxed for anything but what you purchase, you are in total control of how much you are taxed.  Your basics aren't taxed, so how much more you can save is up to you.  If you save your money, don't eat out, buy expensive, new things, you don't pay tax, and you can save more and more.  Savings are not taxed under consumption tax, so you build those savings faster.

I think this is very fair because those that want to get ahead have all the opportunity to do it, while those that choose to have a new car aren't protected.  

I don't think a consumption tax is more fair to the poor then it is to the rich.  What I think is that it is more fair period.  It isn't protecting any one group over another, it protects and levies the responsibility equally.


Bush has put his support behind HR25?  When?  Where?  Never heard about this.  Most of the very wealthy don't want a pure consumption tax.  It causes a few problems.  Many lawyers (especially those in politics) are tax lawyers, they could find themselves out of work.  Most of the very wealthy lose all the protections they have and would end up paying more hard dollars.

Please don't hide behind who you think is supporting it as a reason that it has to be bad.  That's pretty poor.

And I really think you are confusing the different bills that are in congress now.  Bush does support HR2.  HR25 is completely different.


You got one thing right there, the burden has to be shifted.  I'm suggesting that it is shifted to a more equal distribution.  The very rich that got away with not paying as much (because they can hide or not have real income) now have to pay or they don't have their toys.  And why be rich if you can't have your toys?  

What you really get is those that buy more, pay more.  The shift is away from those that make more.  There is a reason for that.  It is much easier to hide what you make then it is to hide what you spend.  It's also much more appropriate to not tax the necessities of life (like food and shelter) then it is to tax them for some and not for others.

And all your assumptions of who would pay are built on other assumptions you made and I didn't.


Yep, AARP represents those with the most to lose.  Since they tend to be low income, therefore low tax payers, it is in their self interest to not have a consumption tax, since they are still consumers.  

And that's a good point for them.  How do you implement a phase shift like this without screwing them over big time?  Well, some would be covered by an exemption for living under the poverty level, but that probably wouldn't be enough.  

Honestly, I hadn't thought about this issue very much, but off the cuff I'd suggest that there be an exemption set up for anyone collecting Social Security (which would also remove much of the very wealthy I believe).  And, just like exemptions for the poor or non-profits (which exist today), if they pass a threshold, they lose the exemption.  Makes it very easy to manage too.  No subsidies, no different rates.  Exempt or not.  A nice binary choice.  I bring this up to also keep out a loop hole of having your grandparents buy you that new car or computers or house.


Again, I'm going to ask what proposed plan you are talking about?  There are a few out there.

Another thing, I've addressed things throughout, and I've repeated them here, but maybe I'm not being clear and you need a different perspective explaining it.  Here's a few paragraphs from Americans for Fair Tax (next post).

That comment really sucks and is pretty damn stupid, and pisses me off.  How much money is the American Government supposed to spend to rebuild Afganistan, Iraq and especially Kosavo?

You (and so many others) think America OWES these countries something.  American gives more then any other nation, hell, as much as most nations combined.  When other nations start giving more, then start pointing fingers.

How much money is the UK dropping into these countries?  Any other nation?

Afghanistan - a government that openly supported the terrorists.  What should we be spending money on?  Building schools to replace the ones that the Russians destroyed in the 80's?

Kosavo - this is a major European issue, not an American one.  

Iraq - I think America's responsibility is to make sure that Iraq's oil flows and the profits go back into rebuilding the country, not into the pockets of any politicians (from any country).  

Funny Bondo, I thought the Taliban started a war against us.  And we sure as hell didn't start a war in Kosavo, now did we?

Odd, I don't remember us doing all that much damage to the Afghan people or property, most of it was in the mountains, against Taliban and Al Queda.

Odd, I think a country was forced to hand over criminals.

Odd, I notice you don't bring up Kosavo this time.

Where does it say we have to take responsibility for their people?  Not like millions of US dollars haven't poured into Afghanistan already, where does it end I ask?  Why are we supposed to fix buildings that have been in ruins since the Soviets invaded?  Answer me that sparky.

The numbers??

Nearly all of the $664 billion in tax cuts go to the top income brackets, while working class families, and especially the poor and unemployed, will receive little or nothing.

The ending of dividend taxation will have no effect on 401(k) accounts, because dividends paid to these retirement accounts are already non-taxable. The benefit will go entirely to those who receive dividends as direct income?disproportionately the rich. Approximately half of the $364 billion will go to the top one percent of Americans, those with incomes of $350,000 a year or more. Some 65 percent will go to the top ten percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population, in income terms, gets less than 10 percent of the tax break.
According to the calculations of the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, people with incomes over $316,895 will save an average of $13,243 on their taxes. People earning $21,350 will save an average of $47?less than $5 a year.

Ace, one problem, the tax cuts that are happening aren't across the board and proportional.  The rich have a greater tax cut, not just in flat dollars, but in actual percent since the tax cuts are largely on things that apply disproportionately to the rich.  So these tax cuts actually change the proportion at which people pay taxes unlike your example.

Haha ace, where did you get that, GOPteamleader.com? For one thing, it is false to say that 40% of the country pays no taxes. There are a few who pay very very little but this number is not even close to 40. However besides how oversimplified this may be, the most absurd part is the worshipful treatment given to the rich man. For one, there is no other country in which people have the chance to amass as much wealth as one can in America. It's not kosher to use our free enterprise to your advantage and then "eat somewhere else" when we tax you. The fact that one can become a multimillionaire or billionaire in America is a privilege, not a right. When I talked about human rights violations made in America, all of you guys said I had no room to talk because compared to other countries America has the best human rights in the world. Well, now I'm going to throw that back in your face and tell you that you should value what chances you have to gain wealth because those chances exist in very few countries, and most European countries will tax the hell out of you anyway.

Another absurd thing is saying that without the aid of the richest 10th, the poor couldn't survive. It's because of the poor that the richest 10th had the chance to become rich. If we reverse this metaphor and say there are 10 people that work at a corporation and the bottom four are manual laborers and the next 5 are up the ladder from machinists to upper management and then the 10th is the CEO. If those four manual laborers stop showing up for work, the CEO is going to be SOL too. So don't act as if this is a one way exchange. They are all depending on each other in one way or another.

If you guys really want it, we can enact the Bush vision for America and go back to the gilded age. He is destroying all of the progressive reforms of the past 100 years that we made because that old system wasn't working. In bucc's words "he's trying to change some of the cornerstones this society was built on, and I for one do not appreciate it."