Delay Calls for National Sales Tax to Replace Federal Income Tax

Yes, I think it is fair. It is their money. They should be able to do what they want to with it. Theoretically, they can pay a lower tax rate. But who will??? Do you really think that someone who makes a million a years is going to live as if they make 20k??? I don't think they will. And those who live paycheck to paycheck do so because 1) they are lower income people buying necessities which apparently aren't taxed, or 2) they are in so much debt because they are trying to live like they make a lot more than they actually do.

And these rich who don't spend it, what will they do?? They will invest it, meaning it will go to corporations who will use it for R&D, manufacturing, job creation, etc. So either way, we win.

But remember, corporations don't pay taxes. They never have, they never will. They will add their cost for taxes into the price of the product. So $1 increase in taxes results in $1 increase in selling price. Then you repeat that all the way up the line so that ultimately the end user is paying all the taxes. Most of them just get hidden in the retail cost. Either way, a corporation has no money to pay taxes with unless someone gives it to them by buying their product.

 

Corporations do pay taxes. They have for a long time and hopefully will continue doing so. Of course this increases the cost of the product...no disagreement there. And due to record keeping it may result in an increase in product cost that is greater than the tax.

Your argument about corporations not having money to pay taxes is untrue. They could sell services instead of products. And the initial risk capital invested in corporations is also a source of money with which to pay taxes.

I am glad that you revealed your concepts of fairness to us Pastor Larry, that you think it is acceptable for high earners to be able to pay a lower percentage of their income to the government than low earners. I think this post should be archived for future readers of the Politics and Current Events threads so that they may understand where you are coming from.

 

Where do you think the corporations got this money?? Services are still "sold," investors put up cash at risk. All the money that a corporation has comes from the sale of its products, whether tangible or intangible. Even buying stock is the sell of a product that raises money for a consumer. It is an intangible, but a product nonetheless. Corporations are not born with money. They get their money from people. And when corporate taxes go up, they can't run over to the presses and print some money up. They have to get their tax payments the same way they get the rest of the money ... by charging their consumers.

Post it far and wide ... (post it in context please) ... but after you do, explain to me why this is so startling to you??? My point is that the money belongs to the individual, and that individual should get to spend it how they want. YOu seem to believe that the government has a right to that money. I don't.

The most fair tax in the world is a straight out flat dollar amount, say for instance, everyone pays $500. Why is that the most fair? Because people who make one million dollar do not get any more government benefits than people who make ten thousand dollars. In fact, in most cases, they get less. They both get the same amount of national security. They both get the same amount of congressional votes. They both get the same amount of ballots, etc. Why should one person pay $100,000 for the same thing that some one else is paying nothing for??? That, to me, is unfair; but perhaps my sense of fairness is out of whack.

How would you like it if, going into a car dealership, you had to show your tax return before you could negotiate for the price of your new car? The person who makes 500,000 pays 50,000 for his Ford Explorer; the person who makes 75,000 pays 7,500 for the same Explorer. Why? In order to be fair. The guy who makes less shouldn't have to pay a greater percentage of his income to get the same benefit ... at least that is what you have been saying until now ...

[ March 30, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Patsor L, read this post for a different example of what you said.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/1753.html#000000

I find it totally amazing that some people have this devilish compulsion to control other peoples money. They remind me of the parable in
Mat 20:1-15 "--Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?---"

 

Corporations can also borrow money. And I thought it was important to distinguish between goods and services as these are often taxed differently. I don't usually view the sale of equity by a company as the sale of a product, but I don't really disagree with you in principle if you do. And I agree with you that corporate taxes are built into the prices of consumer goods. I don't at all object to that. And I still support corporate taxes.

I do not assume that government has a right to anyone's money. But I do think that if the government must take money from folks, the government should start with those who can most afford it and should take more from those who can most afford it. The notion that a poor person should pay a higher percentage of tax than a wealthy person is quite appalling to me. Fortunately, if the Republicans are stupid enough to try it, the party will probably remain out of power for quite some time.

I argue that the folks who make millions of dollars get more benefits from the government...you just can't see them. Who benefits more from roads and infrastructure? Someone who uses it to drive to work? Or someone who uses it to deliver goods and services to the marketplace? I argue the latter person derives greater benefit.

Who benefits more from police protection of property? One with little property? Or one with a lot of property? Who benefits more from FDIC insurance of deposits? Someone with $2500.00 in the bank? Or someone with $2,000,000.00 in multiple accounts in that bank? I argue the millionaire benefits more.

Who benefits more from an orderly society with no looting? I would argue that the person with a lot of property benefits more from this. And this orderly society is in part maintained by at least a minimal social safety net.

I don't think it's like going into a car dealership at all. Because what the rich person gets from society is different from what the poor person gets. It's like one person buying a used Honda and the other person buying a large Lexus. And sure...it would be fine if each person pays a different amount for a different vehicle. That's what really happens at dealerships, isn't it?

Or perhaps my sense of fairness is out of whack?

 

Generally, the poor favor a progressive taxation that puts the burden on the rich.

The rich favor a regressive taxation that puts the burden on the poor.

Delay wants a sales tax, because that means those who have little disposable income will pay tax on all of it, but those who have more than enough income for daily expenses will not pay as much.

Keep in mind, the same amount of money will be required, unless Bush stops spending like a drunken sailor.

Guess who will pay more taxes under this scheme?

 

Galatian makes a good point. It is meaningless to discuss taxation without a corresponding discussion on spending. Bush will be hammering the "tax cut" (which I am for) theme during the campaign, while hoping everyone will forget that WE (or our children) have to pay for his rampant, irresponsible misuse of TRILLIONS of dollars of our money.

 

As long as we have all of the unconstitutional "pork" spending, unconstitutional federal departments to pay for and the unconstitutional federal reserve will will have unconstitutional income tax.

Neither of the two major parties are interested in ending any of these unconstitutional things.

 

The only kind of Sales Tax that makes sense and would be fair is a Sales Tax which exempts Food, Medicine and other healthcare devices, The First $10,000 of a Vehicle Purchase, Primary Housing and the first $500 of Clothing Purchases.

 

Wanna haggle, eh? OK, I'll go for the food and clothing and maybe the housing, but not the car.

 

Ok, let's go.

Transportation to Work is a necessity of life for most Americans. I'm willing to work with you on this one. Since a whole bunch of people depend on public transportation - how can we work this one out to be equitable to all?

No exemption of Sales Taxes for Drugs, Glasses, Hearing Aids? Shame on you for punishing the poor who can't afford these items. What do you have in mind? I'm willing to compromise.

 

I would go a limited amount of housing...not the whole primary residence. Because what I would exempt is everything that is a necessity.

Some drugs yes, some drugs no. Not Viagra for instance.

I think we should include enough gasoline to get a person to work and back and shop for necessities.

And I think there should also be an alternative minimum tax which is a given percentage of all income over a poverty-based threshold. We can argue about whether the AMT should be progressive.

What we don't need is the current tax system which even IRS employees don't fully understand.

 

You're right about the Current Tax System.

My Uncle filled out income taxes for people for years and never had a problem with the IRS. In fact he probably knew more than most of the clerks you get when you call the tollfree number.

 

Hey, by the time we hash this out, we can send it to Congress for introduction.

First, I contend that the list has to be short, or else we'll wind up with another big agency staffed by political appointees to keep track of it all.

As Calvin suggests, maybe some drugs but not all. OTOH, that's beginning to fail my simplicity test already, so tax them all.

My objection to auto exemption is partly based on my contention that the biggest financial mistake made by many is spending an inordinate amount of $$ on cars. You can buy a decent used auto with four or five good years of normal use left in it for, say, $6000 or so. But many people who I know who "cannot afford to send their kids to Christian school" buy a new one every five years or less for $20-25K. THOUSANDS of dollars down the drain that could have been well used elsewhere. Note: I'm an auto buff and do appreciate a nice car, but not at the cost of financial solvency.

I see no need for other exemptions other than ones already agreed upon. Remember, this is replacing income tax.

 

Hey, by the time we hash this out, we can send it to Congress for introduction.

First, I contend that the list has to be short, or else we'll wind up with another big agency staffed by political appointees to keep track of it all.

As Calvin suggests, maybe some drugs but not all. OTOH, that's beginning to fail my simplicity test already, so tax them all.

My objection to auto exemption is partly based on my contention that the biggest financial mistake made by many is spending an inordinate amount of $$ on cars. You can buy a decent used auto with four or five good years of normal use left in it for, say, $6000 or so. But many people who I know who "cannot afford to send their kids to Christian school" buy a new one every five years or less for $20-25K. THOUSANDS of dollars down the drain that could have been well used elsewhere. Note: I'm an auto buff and do appreciate a nice car, but not at the cost of financial solvency.

I see no need for other exemptions other than ones already agreed upon. Remember, this is replacing income tax. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with the Shortness Idea. KISS theory. Keep It Short Stupid. That's what my wife tells me before I preach.

Here's what we have:
Food - Exempt, except for Beer, Chips and Dip
Clothing - First $500 exempt.
Housing - No Sales Tax on first $100,000 of cost of Primary Residences.

How about - No Sales Tax on Used Cars?

Your Turn

 

Cut out the first $500 for clothing...how would you ever track or prove it?...any I'll sign up. Or, I'd even be willing to say clothing exempt altogether. It'll make the rate higher on everything else, though.

 

I actually don't think it has to be all that simple because we can rely on merchants to tax or not tax on the basis of broad categories.

Nowadays, most every merchant uses a bar coded device to keep track of inventory and appropriate pricing. I think these could easily be programmed to tax or not tax base on the identity of the item.

Or am I going wrong?

 

PA Jim...

How about not taxing cheap clothing and taxing expensive clothing under the no-tax-on-necessities theory. So...after the first $20.00 a shirt, shirts are taxed. Just pick a "necessity" threshold with clothing.

I don't think you'd want to exempt Armani suits.

 

OK - Here's the final Draft.

Hardsheller and Pa. Jim's KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) Plan for National Sales Tax.

Food is nontaxable - exception junk food.
No Sales Tax on first $100,000 of Purchase Price of Primary Residence.
NO Sales Tax on USED ITEMS.

All other items get Taxed at point of Sale.

Sign?

 

I vote YES for Hardsheller and Pa. Jim's KISS National Sales Tax!

Connecticut used to have no tax on clothing for children under certain sizes.