GOP Discusses National Sales Tax

[WKL815]

Which is exactly the reason I like it. If I don't buy much - I don't pay much.

Dumb people who have to have diamonds and caviar - will pay more of the burden than me.

But, I will pay my fair share through whatever I do purchase - a car - a house- bubble gum.

Ahhh....minimalists vs. what? fools? materialists?

It's not just diamonds and caviar that is taxed. It's the furniture you buy, the clothes your kid wears, the car you drive, the lawn mower, the fridge, the washer, the computer, the toys, the educational materials, the haircut, it's the home improvement materials, it's many many things - that regular people now buy because they've already sent a set portion of dollars to the government and the rest is their money to appropriate to their household needs as they see fit.

What would you have happen? - for most people to choose to see the "light" and live minimalistic in their small dwellings purchasing few goods and services to the detriment of their fellow "working" stiffs who won't have client bases on which to come by their wages?

It looks like a system designed to promote failure to me.

I learned today Germany sounds very much like this - from a foreign exchange student. They don't even have microwave popcorn! Can you believe it. And Germany's unemployment rate is like in the double digits?

I would be leery of advocating a plan only because I could work the system to pay less and everyone else who didn't was "dumb".

 

[Schweddy]

Simple question. Does your State have a sales tax? Many do.

This is not any different than the state sales tax, but much higher % and it would go to the Gov.

 

[Pacridge]

You're right that I wasn't arguing about the proposed NST. I was arguing with your pie example. The debt (I should have said deficit) was tangential and not the point at all.

You're the one that brought up the pie example which was an insight into how you view the collection of taxes and justify your incessant claim that the Bush tax plan and flat tax rate isn't really for the middle and lower classes in this and other threads.

In my initial post I was having an "ah ha" moment. Now I see where you're getting your basis for that claim - a mistaken belief that this pie has to be "funded" with a certain amount of dollars. Your words, not mine.



"Must be funded"? Your illustration infers it must be funded to a certain predetermined point which is the only way your pie-chart "theory" about shifting tax burden could hold water. In reality the extra money IS the BUDGET DEFICIT. I don't want to argue budget deficits and national debt with you. I wanted you to see the err of your pie chart shifting tax burden theory.

But it never ceased to amaze me the wellspring of tangential thoughts I encounter when arguing points against a...um...non...uh...someone with a differing viewpoint.

To make my point about your pie chart theory further, I went on to outline just what type of income tax increases would actually create a shifting tax burden - to restate - a point, again, made against your shifting burden pie chard misconception. Not trying to argue about debts or deficits there either.

But in classic "differing viewpoint" style , you choose to argue a point I didn't try to make and claim I'm senseless. Classic.

First and foremost I'd like to know when, If ever, I made the claim that you were senseless? I've gone back through this thread and for the life of me can't find anything even close to that. In fact you made the statement "You've changed your argument and it makes no sense to your original claim" So if anything I think you called me senseless.

Second, my point about the pie chart is whatever taxes collected are represent by the pie chart. That chart has to be fully funded, they are taxes that are collected. In none of my post in this thread have I been discussing a tax increase, a tax decrease or for that matter a tax deficit. In everyone of my post I have been speaking solely in terms of the proposals of changing the current tax system to either a flat tax or a sales tax. My point was, and still is, if you create, for example, a flat tax and lets say that rate is 20% (I believe thats at least one of the rates they're talking about). Currently the upper end of the tax level is something like 38% (I think, I'd have to go look it up to be sure, could be a little more could be a little less) and at the very bottom you have a few people paying nothing- 0%. So then the upper end goes down in tax and the lower end goes up in tax. Hence my arguement of the shifting burden. It could be that my pie chart example wasn't very clear, but I certainly wasn't calling your position or you "senseless."

Thirdly, I've gone back through every post in every thread I've authored on here and I can't find one, or any group for that matter, where I've gone on "incessantly" claiming that Bush's tax cuts shift the burden to the lower and middle classes. The only posts I can find related to this are posts where I've pointed out that Bush stated "By far vast the majority of my tax cuts go to the lower end of the spectrum." I have consistently pointed out that in fact is not the case with his tax cuts and that the majority (in dollars) of his cuts go to the wealthly. In one thread CSA_TX asked why I opposed everyone getting a tax cut evenly and I replied that "I'm not opposed to giving tax cuts to the wealthly per se, but if that's what you're going to do- why claim the opposite?" I never stated this shifted any tax burden, least not that I can find.

Lastly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "In reality the extra money IS the BUDGET DEFICIT." I've read it a few times and could just be missing something? I really don't know and I'm not trying to be funny, just not getting what you're saying. How is extra money a deficit?

 

[WKL815]

Thanks for your post, Pacridge. Bah is my e-version of a balk.

You're right, I did insinuate you were senseless b/c in your first rebuttal post you focused on the national debt and didn't address the pie chart issue at all which was what I had discussed. Then you turned around and said I was the one changing the issue which I did - but to the pie chart, not national debt/deficits.

I'm sorry. And I am sorry for my following posts and thank you for continuing to debate with me. I really enjoy the exchanging of ideas.

Speaking of deficits. The income taxes collected are (just) a part of the spending budget along with myriad other sources I won't pretend to know about. Still, all those sources aren't enough to cover what we actually spend and therefore we borrow it. What we have to borrow is the deficit. That is what I meant by the extra money - the borrowed extra money.

I hope this explains what I meant because I'm not sure I can make it any clearer, nor would you want to read it again I imagine.

 

[WKL815]

Pie Chart/Previous Tax Claims

Are you sure you truly meant that the pie chart was a representation of whatever amount of income taxes may be garnered? Because it would then seem redundant to claim you must "realize the full chart must be funded." And no "picking up of the slack" would be necessary because two pies that represent two different dollar amounts do not have any mathematical correlation rendering your entire analogy defunct.

And about your tax claims:

"My tax cuts went to the lower and middle class" certainly not.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=227&page=2

Then they give more tax cut to millionaires and billionaires who don't need the cash while our troops suffer. It's all part of Georges "No Billionaire Left Behind Plan."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=609

And these two examples are not taken from any of the tax-related subject threads. You seem to insert the "tax" issue whenever possible.

And I am so glad you stated an understanding of dollar amounts versus percentages when discussing the tax issue:

I have consistently pointed out that in fact is not the case with his tax cuts and that the majority (in dollars) of his cuts go to the wealthly.

Because the dollar amount figure, which the rich get relief from in tax cuts to their rates too, is again a mathematical correlation to the amount of money they PAY.

But looking just at percentages doesn't give us the full story. The straight dollar amounts are even more lopsided. The wealthiest 1 percent -- a tiny group of people -- pay more than $240 billion per year, nearly one-third of all federal income taxes. If we include the wealthiest 10 percent, the whole group forks over more than $460 billion, roughly two-thirds of all income taxes.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=307

So when you consistently point out that the majority (in dollars) of his tax cuts go to the wealthy, you are seemingly demonizing a mathematical fact. In reality, it would be more honest to say that you think the damned rich people have enough money to fund all of our society and they should.

 

[WKL815]

Flat Tax

I'll concede that a flat flat tax that you may have in mind would increase the tax burden on people currently paying 0, 10% or whatever. But the flat tax systems proposed out there, take that into account:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx30.html

The working poor would pay no tax until well above the poverty line -- thus a family of four would pay no tax until its income reached $33,300 (under the Armey-Shelby plan).

http://www.taxreform.com/flat_tax.html

Taxable income is defined as total income minus savings and investments minus a threshold income. The typical family threshold income is $36,800. This would mean that nearly half of all households would pay no federal income tax under this plan.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/2001/flat_tax/section_06.html

One frequently overlooked aspect of Hall-Rabushka is its rejection of alternative taxes such as a national sales tax or value-added tax. Both scholars reject the alternatives because of the difficulty of exempting lower-income individuals and families from taxation. Under Hall-Rabushka a significant number of lower-income families pay absolutely no income tax. In fact, under Hall-Rabushka the exemption for a family of four in 1995 was $25,500 (CDN$32,986). In other words, a family of four with total income less than US$25,500 would pay no income tax and families with income above the exemption would pay 19% tax on the amount in excess of the exemption.

Don't assume the worst.

 

[Pacridge]

Pie Chart/Previous Tax Claims

Are you sure you truly meant that the pie chart was a representation of whatever amount of income taxes may be garnered? Because it would then seem redundant to claim you must "realize the full chart must be funded." And no "picking up of the slack" would be necessary because two pies that represent two different dollar amounts do not have any mathematical correlation rendering your entire analogy defunct.

I'm sure- I know what I was trying to say. Not sure I was very effective in my attempt but this entire thread I've been speaking in terms of the tax system and taxes collected. Again my pie chart example may have been a poor way to explain this position. The only point I was trying to make is that if the upper end of the tax specrum gets lowered then the bottom end almost certainly has to rise. That's what I thought this thread was about and that's what I was saying- all I was saying.

I don't understand your two pies example? Maybe we should forget about pies altogether.

 

[Pacridge]

Originally Posted by Pacridge
"My tax cuts went to the lower and middle class" certainly not.

The only point I'm trying to make with this post is that Bush claims one thing and another actually true. This post had nothing to do with shifting tax burden.


Originally Posted by Pacridge
Then they give more tax cut to millionaires and billionaires who don't need the cash while our troops suffer. It's all part of Georges "No Billionaire Left Behind Plan."


This post had to do with the fact that many of our troops do not have the needed equipment to protect themselves and it doesn't make sense to me to give more tax cuts when we can't to equip them. Again no comment on any tax burden shift. As a side note I actually thought the tax cuts were a good idea and in fact I voted Bush in 2000. When we were forced to war I told my wife "there goes our tax cuts." In my mind there was no way you could go to war, fund that and cut taxes, least not without having a very neg. effect on the economy. A lot of people who understand economics better than me said the same thing. For example, in fall of 2003 I was watching the Jim Lehrer Newhour program on PBS and he said basically the same. If you look around on here you'll find a post where I criticize Bush for this very thing (I'd go find it for you but frankly I got better things to do, trust me its on here somewhere). He's the first leader ever, in the history of the world, to cut taxes while waging war. But none of this has anything to do with increasing a tax burden on the middle and lower classes. It does have to do with not supporting our troops. Something else Bush says he does, but really doesn't.

"So when you consistently point out that the majority (in dollars) of his tax cuts go to the wealthy, you are seemingly demonizing a mathematical fact. In reality, it would be more honest to say that you think the damned rich people have enough money to fund all of our society and they should."

Quite frankly I don't think the wealthly, or damned rich people as you put it, could or should fund the entire system. I'm very opposed to giving people something for nothing. If only the wealthly paid, everyone else would be getting a free ride, wouldn't they? This is what happens with welfare, people get something for nothing and then have no reason to produce; trust me I've seen this first hand. I do believe there's middle ground and that the more you make, to some extent, the more you should pay. In fact I think in my first post on this thread I stated something to the effect of "that's fine, if you think the wealthly are over taxed."

 

[Pacridge]

Flat Tax

I'll concede that a flat flat tax that you may have in mind would increase the tax burden on people currently paying 0, 10% or whatever. But the flat tax systems proposed out there, take that into account:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx30.html

The working poor would pay no tax until well above the poverty line -- thus a family of four would pay no tax until its income reached $33,300 (under the Armey-Shelby plan).

http://www.taxreform.com/flat_tax.html

Taxable income is defined as total income minus savings and investments minus a threshold income. The typical family threshold income is $36,800. This would mean that nearly half of all households would pay no federal income tax under this plan.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/2001/flat_tax/section_06.html

One frequently overlooked aspect of Hall-Rabushka is its rejection of alternative taxes such as a national sales tax or value-added tax. Both scholars reject the alternatives because of the difficulty of exempting lower-income individuals and families from taxation. Under Hall-Rabushka a significant number of lower-income families pay absolutely no income tax. In fact, under Hall-Rabushka the exemption for a family of four in 1995 was $25,500 (CDN$32,986). In other words, a family of four with total income less than US$25,500 would pay no income tax and families with income above the exemption would pay 19% tax on the amount in excess of the exemption.

Don't assume the worst.

I hate to tell you this but when it comes to politicians and tax plans I tend to assume the worst. Maybe I'm just a cynical old SOB- don't know. See when I hear and read things like:

Taxable income is defined as total income minus savings and investments minus a threshold income. The typical family threshold income is $36,800. This would mean that nearly half of all households would pay no federal income tax under this plan

I tend to think I'm being sold a pig in a poke. Under "plans" like this suddenly half of all of us wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all? Do we have 50% of our household currently paying no taxes? I'm sure there are household out there with income levels low enough to not pay anything, I seriously doubt it's 50% of all household. Unless the economy is worse than I thought and there are more poor then I realized. But let's say these numbers do work and the 50% of the lowest household won't end up paying taxes. And all these plans decrease the percentage paid by the top wage earners. So then tell me what will happen to the tax rate of the middle wage earners? Or will everybody's tax rate go down, sun will shine every day and we'll all live happily ever after?

 

[WKL815]

Okay, Pac. I'm at a crossroads here. I could keep attacking your words that you've already posted to show that you have failures in mathematical theory in how you arrive at your opinions relating to the tax issues.

And we could perpetually do this "you said this", "but I meant this" thing. And although this website is about debating, I can't compete with logic gaps that when I point out you just reassert your claim as though saying it makes it so.

So, here we are. I advocate dropping the attacks on your pie chart theory, I'll ignore your blatant denial of evidence about the flat tax in favor of your own opinion and disbelief, concede that you think you really don't believe the "rich" should unfairly be charged with funding our government and you can go on the offensive position of proving this:

The only point I was trying to make is that if the upper end of the tax specrum gets lowered then the bottom end almost certainly has to rise.

and do it with numbers. Because, again - saying it's so isn't enough. It has to be true. I say it isn't true because my understanding of math tells me it's not. So we'll take it slow and do just a little bit at a time so you can work the theory too.

It's up to you. We can move forward by using an example with actual numbers. If you don't know which numbers you'll need, I can give you a list after you choose to carry on. And, I hope you do because it's important you understand the math behind your belief if you are going to keep bashing Bush's tax cut -which you can still do! But by using an actual honest to goodness bona-fide reason and not one that fails logic. (hint: you tripped on it when you mentioned Lehrer.)

Or we could stop, which would be sad and very telling. And you should know that in all future posts when you make such a claim as quoted above, I'll be on the other end laughing and rolling my eyes at your pompousness for thinking you have truthful tax knowledge without doing the hard work of the logic that leads to the conclusion. <-----And I will post this line right there with this guy whenever I see it.

 

[Pacridge]

Well I'm tried of being attacked, so why don't you just enlighten me as to how math really works since I guess I'm too dense to understand it's basics. While at feel free to explain to me my failed logic and by all means while doing so, make funny faces. As far as tipping my hand by using a reference to "Lehrer"; I suppose I could have used any other number of references since he wasn't the only person who noted the situation- But I'm beginning to suspect if it didn't come from Fox News Channel you'd likely have the same response.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

I have some interesting thoughts.

1. Why should the rich pay a higher or lower percentage tax then I pay? Regardless of what system we decide to go with, they should pay more money, but why a different percentage.

2. Why should the poor pay a higher or lower percentage tax then I pay? Regardless of what system we decide to go with, they should pay more money, but why a different percentage.


As far as items being taxed that I don't think people are considering.

Toilet Paper - taxable item. On the humorous side, you're paying the government for the priveledge to wipe your own arse. (sorry, just had to mention it)

Tires, oil filter, spark plugs

Trucks for corperate fleets

Multi-million dollar semiconductor tools

nuts, bolts, and screws used to put together your new car

Let's use setting up an automobile factory. What would be the tax burden on the company to set up the factory if everything purchased for the factory had a 10% tax on it. (used for ease of math) What items would not normally face a sales tax, but would now due to a NST? Would the company attempt to offset the cost by increasing their prices and therefore creating a higher tax payout to the consumer?

Interesting. I just stumbled on that.

Let's look at a company out in Oregon since they don't have a sales tax.

If the company spends $10 per unit in raw materials then with a 10% NST the cost of materials would jump to $11. If the company wanted to make a modest profit of $10 then the price of the finished product would jump from $20 to $21. The price to the consumer per unit would jump from $20 to $23.10.

What's my point?

There's really not much of a point, per se. Just thinking. Maybe this will spark some thought with someone else as well.

 

[Schweddy]

In the national sales tax - corporations and business would not pay taxes - therefore the prices would be reduced because of the less burden.

If they were charged taxes - that is taxing an item more than once.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

I was under the impression that they would no longer pay taxes under the current system and would pay sales tax.

That seems like a hell of a budget short fall without the corps paying in.

 

[Pacridge]

I was under the impression that they would no longer pay taxes under the current system and would pay sales tax.

That seems like a hell of a budget short fall without the corps paying in.

Oh come on. We can all easily get something for nothing. Corps won't pay taxes, lower income families won't pay taxes and everybody else will have their taxes lowered. No problem with that logic, right?

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Is that sarcasm I smell?

 

[Pacridge]

Sarcasm? What sarcasm? This all makes perfect sense. Everyone will pay less tax. Corporations and businesses will pay no tax at all. And since they'll be saving money on their taxes it's a sure bet they'll pass those savings on to consumers. Because as we all know that's what corporations do- they look out for the little guy, for consumers. They would never increase their profits and "bottom line" by such a shift. Sarcasm? What sarcasm?

 

[WKL815]

Pac, so you know, I wasn't saying that you didn't get the Lehrer reference right. I meant that you came upon a valid point against the tax cuts. Although I have to say that I have a rebuttal fact for that argument too.

 

[Pacridge]

Pac, so you know, I wasn't saying that you didn't get the Lehrer reference right. I meant that you came upon a valid point against the tax cuts. Although I have to say that I have a rebuttal fact for that argument too.

Okay, lets hear it- I'm all ears.

 

[WKL815]

People say that in light of the economic downturn and the cost of the war, President Bush should have raised taxes instead of cutting them and that we would be in a much better place economically speaking. Certainly a valid thought.

But I present the fact that when Bush took office, we were already in one hell of a downturn. I work at a national brokerage firm and I know it started late 1999 and the bottom fell out in March 2000.

Well, Herbert Hoover took office in the midst of an economic downturn. He raised taxes and the economy plunged into a depression.

What's ironic is that the democrats actually compare Bush to Hoover as though there are similarities. But if you look at the numbers, we are not in a depression. The market is not as bad as the Crash of '29, not even as bad as the Crash of '87. There are actually very few undisputed similarities between the two except that they were both Republicans during a trying period in our country's history.

So I rebut that if Bush had raised taxes, then there's historical precedent that things would have gotten worse. Then they're might be some real and significant statistical similarities between Bush and Hoover.

 

[Pacridge]

People say that in light of the economic downturn and the cost of the war, President Bush should have raised taxes instead of cutting them and that we would be in a much better place economically speaking. Certainly a valid thought.

But I present the fact that when Bush took office, we were already in one hell of a downturn. I work at a national brokerage firm and I know it started late 1999 and the bottom fell out in March 2000.

Well, Herbert Hoover took office in the midst of an economic downturn. He raised taxes and the economy plunged into a depression.

What's ironic is that the democrats actually compare Bush to Hoover as though there are similarities. But if you look at the numbers, we are not in a depression. The market is not as bad as the Crash of '29, not even as bad as the Crash of '87. There are actually very few undisputed similarities between the two except that they were both Republicans during a trying period in our country's history.

So I rebut that if Bush had raised taxes, then there's historical precedent that things would have gotten worse. Then they're might be some real and significant statistical similarities between Bush and Hoover.

My point was that cutting taxes during wartime doesn't make sense. What war were we involved in during the Hoover Administration?

 

[WKL815]

Pac, you're right. We weren't in a war during Hoover.

But we weren't just in a war in 2001 either. We were in a war on top of an economic downturn. And it just doesn't work to say, "Hey folks. I'm gonna raise taxes because we're going to war. But, hey, Economy? It's not about you though, so don't react, okay?"