History Quiz for Conservatives....

[canceled.2021.1]

Can you provide an example of how people would avoid taxes through manipulation?



Every form of taxation has that same problem.



A consumption tax is one of the most easily manipulated forms of taxation. It is also a very regressive form of taxation.

As long as you tax income you have a loophole called CASH. ask anyone in a cash based business if they report every dollar. They don't.

If you want to make the regressive argument then you exclude food an clothes. Problem solved.

The only reason to oppose a consumption tax is if you have another agenda than fairly raising revenues

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As long as you tax income you have a loophole called CASH. ask anyone in a cash based business if they report every dollar. They don't.

Ok... and how does that change with a consumption tax? They can just as easily not report a sale.

If you want to make the regressive argument then you exclude food an clothes. Problem solved.

No, it remains highly regressive. The poor and lower middle income families spend almost 100% of their money on consumption. They are thus taxed on everything. Whereas the upper middle and high income families also invest and grow portfolios. You are not taxing that with consumption. Their effective tax rate would therefore be lower as a percentage of overall income. It would thus remain regressive.

The only reason to oppose a consumption tax is if you have another agenda than fairly raising revenues

Actually it is because it is a regressive tax and you simply don't comprehend that. I oppose a regressive tax system, including the current structure.

The flat tax with a standard deduction is a truly progressive tax and it is truly fair. It taxes all sources of income equally. The poor and middle classes are going to pay far lower taxes under a flat tax than under a consumption tax.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Ok... and how does that change with a consumption tax? They can just as easily not report a sale.



No, it remains highly regressive. The poor and lower middle income families spend almost 100% of their money on consumption. They are thus taxed on everything. Whereas the upper middle and high income families also invest and grow portfolios. You are not taxing that with consumption. Their effective tax rate would therefore be lower as a percentage of overall income. It would thus remain regressive.



Actually it is because it is a regressive tax and you simply don't comprehend that. I oppose a regressive tax system, including the current structure.

The flat tax with a standard deduction is a truly progressive tax and it is truly fair. It taxes all sources of income equally. The poor and middle classes are going to pay far lower taxes under a flat tax than under a consumption tax.

The government collects the sales tax from the business. Just like states do today. The difference is that drug dealers pay no income taxes today, but they pay sales tax. Get it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Can you provide an example of how people would avoid taxes through manipulation?

A consumption tax is one of the most easily manipulated forms of taxation. It is also a very regressive form of taxation.

We already have consumption taxes, they are called state and local sales tax. Legitimate businesses and consumers operating within the law can't avoid these. Why would national sales tax be any different? Yes, there would still be some people who cheat the system, we punish them severely, that takes care of most of it.

I don't understand the "regressive" argument. A fair tax would have a built-in threshold to allow everyone to purchase a certain amount without taxation, to cover basic living expenses. A poor person who's not buying the latest iPhone or designer jeans, isn't going to pay the tax, they are living below the threshold. The people who spend the most are going to pay the highest taxes... wealthy people generally tend to spend more than non-wealthy people, wouldn't you agree? So how is this 'regressive' in any way?

Now what it DOES end, is class warfare. You won't be able to run around whining and moaning about this group not paying their fair share or that group suffering at the expense of the wealthy. Is THAT what you meant by "regressive?"

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Ok... and how does that change with a consumption tax? They can just as easily not report a sale.



No, it remains highly regressive. The poor and lower middle income families spend almost 100% of their money on consumption. They are thus taxed on everything. Whereas the upper middle and high income families also invest and grow portfolios. You are not taxing that with consumption. Their effective tax rate would therefore be lower as a percentage of overall income. It would thus remain regressive.



Actually it is because it is a regressive tax and you simply don't comprehend that. I oppose a regressive tax system, including the current structure.

The flat tax with a standard deduction is a truly progressive tax and it is truly fair. It taxes all sources of income equally. The poor and middle classes are going to pay far lower taxes under a flat tax than under a consumption tax.

If it is a flat tax for all, then how is that progressive. How is it anymore progressive than a flat 10% sales tax. Yes the rich would pay a larger dollar in taxes under a flat tax, but they would under a consumption tax because they buy more stuff.

The difference between your scheme and mine is that taxing income is immoral and my scheme is more effective because it broadens the tax base more. But your argument that a flat tax is not regressive flies in the face of every argument I have ever heard any lefty make about the flat tax.

Don't get me wrong , I would take a flat tax over our present system any day. I just think consumption tax is better

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The government collects the sales tax from the business. Just like states do today. The difference is that drug dealers pay no income taxes today, but they pay sales tax. Get it?

LMAO... so you are going to pretend that the drug dealers are the difference maker?

Legalize drugs... problem solved. Trying to get criminals to pay taxes is not justification for a regressive tax code on everyone.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We already have consumption taxes, they are called state and local sales tax. Legitimate businesses and consumers operating within the law can't avoid these. Why would national sales tax be any different? Yes, there would still be some people who cheat the system, we punish them severely, that takes care of most of it.

I don't understand the "regressive" argument. A fair tax would have a built-in threshold to allow everyone to purchase a certain amount without taxation, to cover basic living expenses. A poor person who's not buying the latest iPhone or designer jeans, isn't going to pay the tax, they are living below the threshold. The people who spend the most are going to pay the highest taxes... wealthy people generally tend to spend more than non-wealthy people, wouldn't you agree? So how is this 'regressive' in any way?

Now what it DOES end, is class warfare. You won't be able to run around whining and moaning about this group not paying their fair share or that group suffering at the expense of the wealthy. Is THAT what you meant by "regressive?"

Try reading ditzie. I already addressed why it is regressive.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If it is a flat tax for all, then how is that progressive. How is it anymore progressive than a flat 10% sales tax. Yes the rich would pay a larger dollar in taxes under a flat tax, but they would under a consumption tax because they buy more stuff.

The difference between your scheme and mine is that taxing income is immoral and my scheme is more effective because it broadens the tax base more. But your argument that a flat tax is not regressive flies in the face of every argument I have ever heard any lefty make about the flat tax.

Don't get me wrong , I would take a flat tax over our present system any day. I just think consumption tax is better

The standard deduction is what makes it progressive....

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Try reading ditzie. I already addressed why it is regressive.

Here's your argument:

No, it remains highly regressive. The poor and lower middle income families spend almost 100% of their money on consumption. They are thus taxed on everything. Whereas the upper middle and high income families also invest and grow portfolios. You are not taxing that with consumption. Their effective tax rate would therefore be lower as a percentage of overall income. It would thus remain regressive.

First of all, the poor would NOT pay ANY tax on amounts spent up to the threshold. For sake of argument, let's say we set the threshold at $14k per year, a person who only makes $14k per year, can't spend MORE, they don't make MORE! Therefore, they would pay $0 in tax and 0% of their income in tax. If a person made $20k, the most they could possibly be taxed on is $6k, because again, they can't be taxed on what they can't spend because they don't have, because they never earned.

No, you wouldn't tax investments and portfolios, but we don't tax those now! A point I often make in the Class Warfare arguments, the wealthy people do not HAVE to receive their investment dividends as income, and if they don't, they aren't taxed. So you are clinging to something that isn't currently taxed, as a reason not to do this? The 4th Amendment prohibits you from confiscating property from individuals, so we will never have a "wealth" tax. The ONLY way they pay tax on investment dividends, is if they receive these as income during the year. Now, the only reason they would take their money out of investment would be in order to spend it, which would result in a tax under my idea. It wouldn't matter if the money came from investment dividends (capital gains) or earned income, the tax at the consumption level would all be the same.

So now... you have NOT explained how the tax is regressive. You've attempted to explain it, but I have refuted it with facts.

 

[Bonestorm]

You guys should start a fantasy tax plan league.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The standard deduction is what makes it progressive....

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

I appreciate your thoughtful response but the problem still remains that there is no mechanism to not end up where we are right now. You still have members of society with no skin in the game paying no taxes. As we see today it doesn't take much to convince those who pay no taxes to agree to increase them on those that do.

As I stated before the original income tax was never going to go above 1% and would only ever apply to the top 1%. How did that work out?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here's your argument:

No, it remains highly regressive. The poor and lower middle income families spend almost 100% of their money on consumption. They are thus taxed on everything. Whereas the upper middle and high income families also invest and grow portfolios. You are not taxing that with consumption. Their effective tax rate would therefore be lower as a percentage of overall income. It would thus remain regressive.

First of all, the poor would NOT pay ANY tax on amounts spent up to the threshold. For sake of argument, let's say we set the threshold at $14k per year, a person who only makes $14k per year, can't spend MORE, they don't make MORE! Therefore, they would pay $0 in tax and 0% of their income in tax. If a person made $20k, the most they could possibly be taxed on is $6k, because again, they can't be taxed on what they can't spend because they don't have, because they never earned.

No, you wouldn't tax investments and portfolios, but we don't tax those now! A point I often make in the Class Warfare arguments, the wealthy people do not HAVE to receive their investment dividends as income, and if they don't, they aren't taxed. So you are clinging to something that isn't currently taxed, as a reason not to do this? The 4th Amendment prohibits you from confiscating property from individuals, so we will never have a "wealth" tax. The ONLY way they pay tax on investment dividends, is if they receive these as income during the year. Now, the only reason they would take their money out of investment would be in order to spend it, which would result in a tax under my idea. It wouldn't matter if the money came from investment dividends (capital gains) or earned income, the tax at the consumption level would all be the same.

So now... you have NOT explained how the tax is regressive. You've attempted to explain it, but I have refuted it with facts.

Yes ditzie, I did explain it, you just aren't intelligent enough to comprehend.

1) First, to debunk your myth that investments aren't taxed, you are 100% incorrect. They are taxed currently either upon sale or upon distribution of a dividend or capital gain. Under your system all of the gains they have would never be taxed unless that money was used in consumption of goods/services.

2) Second, to debunk your stupidity on why people take their money out of investments... spending it is NOT the only reason you dolt. People sell securities that they think have topped or they sell because they think there are other investment opportunities elsewhere. Right now, when they do so, if they have gains, they get taxed.

3) In your little scenario of having an exempt amount... is the same amount exempt for everyone? Regardless:

Assume in your scenario a person: assume your consumption tax is 15% for arguments sake (since you didn't state what it was)

a) Earns $14k... they would pay no taxes
b) Earns $28k... they would pay taxes on $14k as they are not going to be saving... their effective tax rate would be 7.5%
c) Earns $50k... again, they are going to be spending 100%, taxed on $34k... their effective tax rate would be 10.2%
d) Earns $100k... say they save 25% spend 75%, They would be taxed on $61k... their effective tax rate would be 9.15%
e) Earns $1m... say they save/invest 50%, they would be taxed on 500k (assuming you are not going to give them the break) .... their effective tax rate would be 7.5%

for the truly wealthy that have the bulk of their money growing in investments, their effective rate would be far lower. But as you can see from above, it doesn't take much savings/investment for the consumption tax to go regressive. Sure, among the poor and lower middle income it starts out progressive, but it quickly reverts for those who have larger investments/savings.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The standard deduction is what makes it progressive....

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.

And you STILL have people who find loopholes! Instead of a corporate CEO making $1m per year in salary to be taxed, the salary is reduced to $100k a year, and the company provides a home, car, food, clothing, corporate jet, villa in Spain, expense account, stocks, etc, etc, etc. PERKS! You can't tax a perk! It's not earned income.

You STILL have a ton of people who aren't currently paying income taxes because they don't report their incomes. Not just drug dealers, but all kinds of people doing all kinds of things under the table for cash.

You STILL have Class Warfare, the Liberals running around like headless chickens, screaming about the 1% and the injustices.

You'll STILL have the same IRS and the same system of taxation with the same lobby groups clamoring for tax breaks and credits. You can say we would eliminate all of those, but you have to remember, they were ALL passed into law by Congress because of some interest, reason or concern, so elimination of them would raise the same concerns all over again, and we're back to square one. Within a short time, probably before the ink was dry, you'd have people hollering for exemptions, and this would continue year after year, election after election, and in a few years, we'd have your idea of a tax code with basically the same deductions, credits and loopholes we currently have.

A consumption tax eliminates ALL of that.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

And you STILL have people who find loopholes! Instead of a corporate CEO making $1m per year in salary to be taxed, the salary is reduced to $100k a year, and the company provides a home, car, food, clothing, corporate jet, villa in Spain, expense account, stocks, etc, etc, etc. PERKS! You can't tax a perk! It's not earned income.

You STILL have a ton of people who aren't currently paying income taxes because they don't report their incomes. Not just drug dealers, but all kinds of people doing all kinds of things under the table for cash.

You STILL have Class Warfare, the Liberals running around like headless chickens, screaming about the 1% and the injustices.

You'll STILL have the same IRS and the same system of taxation with the same lobby groups clamoring for tax breaks and credits. You can say we would eliminate all of those, but you have to remember, they were ALL passed into law by Congress because of some interest, reason or concern, so elimination of them would raise the same concerns all over again, and we're back to square one. Within a short time, probably before the ink was dry, you'd have people hollering for exemptions, and this would continue year after year, election after election, and in a few years, we'd have your idea of a tax code with basically the same deductions, credits and loopholes we currently have.

A consumption tax eliminates ALL of that.

Actually you can tax a perk. Ever hear of imputed income?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

And you STILL have people who find loopholes! Instead of a corporate CEO making $1m per year in salary to be taxed, the salary is reduced to $100k a year, and the company provides a home, car, food, clothing, corporate jet, villa in Spain, expense account, stocks, etc, etc, etc. PERKS! You can't tax a perk! It's not earned income.

You STILL have a ton of people who aren't currently paying income taxes because they don't report their incomes. Not just drug dealers, but all kinds of people doing all kinds of things under the table for cash.

You STILL have Class Warfare, the Liberals running around like headless chickens, screaming about the 1% and the injustices.

You'll STILL have the same IRS and the same system of taxation with the same lobby groups clamoring for tax breaks and credits. You can say we would eliminate all of those, but you have to remember, they were ALL passed into law by Congress because of some interest, reason or concern, so elimination of them would raise the same concerns all over again, and we're back to square one. Within a short time, probably before the ink was dry, you'd have people hollering for exemptions, and this would continue year after year, election after election, and in a few years, we'd have your idea of a tax code with basically the same deductions, credits and loopholes we currently have.

A consumption tax eliminates ALL of that.

The best part of a consumption tax is that it would force the government to live within its means. It would be very difficult to raise taxes because EVETYONE would feel it. Which is the entire point.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I appreciate your thoughtful response but the problem still remains that there is no mechanism to not end up where we are right now. You still have members of society with no skin in the game paying no taxes. As we see today it doesn't take much to convince those who pay no taxes to agree to increase them on those that do.

As I stated before the original income tax was never going to go above 1% and would only ever apply to the top 1%. How did that work out?

The same can be said with any tax system. The consumption tax as well. Companies lobbying congress to make their items 'necessities', people lobbying to increase the consumption tax on high end goods etc...

You can never get away from that.

Now, the one way around it for the flat tax system I proposed is to include that any loopholes and deductions (other than the standard) must meet a 2/3 requirement in both the House and Senate. The percentages can be changed by simple majority and they should be. We cannot cripple the future generations based on today's circumstances.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The same can be said with any tax system. The consumption tax as well. Companies lobbying congress to make their items 'necessities', people lobbying to increase the consumption tax on high end goods etc...

You can never get away from that.

Now, the one way around it for the flat tax system I proposed is to include that any loopholes and deductions (other than the standard) must meet a 2/3 requirement in both the House and Senate. The percentages can be changed by simple majority and they should be. We cannot cripple the future generations based on today's circumstances.

Fair points on lobbying for loopholes. Like I said, I would take a flat tax if we could get it passed. I am just partial to a consumption tax

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And you STILL have people who find loopholes! Instead of a corporate CEO making $1m per year in salary to be taxed, the salary is reduced to $100k a year, and the company provides a home, car, food, clothing, corporate jet, villa in Spain, expense account, stocks, etc, etc, etc. PERKS! You can't tax a perk! It's not earned income.

Dear Ditzie... we already tax perks... it most certainly can and is treated as income.

You STILL have a ton of people who aren't currently paying income taxes because they don't report their incomes. Not just drug dealers, but all kinds of people doing all kinds of things under the table for cash.

lol... yes, criminals do commit crimes. Thanks ditzie. I am sure they have no idea how to create a black market for goods and services. Again, using criminals as a reason for a regressive tax code on honest people is ridiculous.

You STILL have Class Warfare, the Liberals running around like headless chickens, screaming about the 1% and the injustices.

That does not change with a consumption tax ditzie... everyone will realize quite quickly how regressive the consumption tax is and will demand it be changed.

You'll STILL have the same IRS and the same system of taxation with the same lobby groups clamoring for tax breaks and credits. You can say we would eliminate all of those, but you have to remember, they were ALL passed into law by Congress because of some interest, reason or concern, so elimination of them would raise the same concerns all over again, and we're back to square one. Within a short time, probably before the ink was dry, you'd have people hollering for exemptions, and this would continue year after year, election after election, and in a few years, we'd have your idea of a tax code with basically the same deductions, credits and loopholes we currently have.

A consumption tax eliminates ALL of that.

No ditzie, a consumption tax does not eliminate any of that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fair points on lobbying for loopholes. Like I said, I would take a flat tax if we could get it passed. I am just partial to a consumption tax

I think the consumption is simply too regressive, even in light of the current regressive system we have in place. Personal opinion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes ditzie, I did explain it, you just aren't intelligent enough to comprehend.

No, you are too hard headed to actually READ what I posted.

1) First, to debunk your myth that investments aren't taxed, you are 100% incorrect. They are taxed currently either upon sale or upon distribution of a dividend or capital gain. Under your system all of the gains they have would never be taxed unless that money was used in consumption of goods/services.

I didn't say investments aren't taxed. I said essentially what you are saying, they are taxed upon sale or distribution. IF the investment is left alone and not touched, it isn't taxed.

2) Second, to debunk your stupidity on why people take their money out of investments... spending it is NOT the only reason you dolt. People sell securities that they think have topped or they sell because they think there are other investment opportunities elsewhere. Right now, when they do so, if they have gains, they get taxed.

If they take their money out, what will they do with it besides spend it? What value does money have if it's not spent? You think wealthy people are going to avoid taxation by living poor and not spending their money? Really? And you call me 'ditzie?'

3) In your little scenario of having an exempt amount... is the same amount exempt for everyone? Regardless:

Assume in your scenario a person: assume your consumption tax is 15% for arguments sake (since you didn't state what it was)

a) Earns $14k... they would pay no taxes
b) Earns $28k... they would pay taxes on $14k as they are not going to be saving... their effective tax rate would be 7.5%
c) Earns $50k... again, they are going to be spending 100%, taxed on $34k... their effective tax rate would be 10.2%
d) Earns $100k... say they save 25% spend 75%, They would be taxed on $61k... their effective tax rate would be 9.15%
e) Earns $1m... say they save/invest 50%, they would be taxed on 500k (assuming you are not going to give them the break) .... their effective tax rate would be 7.5%

You are making wild presumptions about people and spending habits here. People tend to live within their means, whatever they are. If you make $50k a year, you buy more stuff than someone making $30k, you have a nicer home which costs more and has higher property tax, and maybe you have an extra vehicle in the garage or a pool? Same if you make $100k or $200k, you live a little better lifestyle, you spend a little more money on frivolous things and splurge more, and the more you make, the more this dynamic is in play. There is NO indication that someone who makes more money is more inclined to invest or save than someone who makes less. Every indication is, people who make more money, spend more money, purchase more luxury, enjoy the extra wealth because that's what life is all about. Now if they want to invest, that is fine, we don't care how much money they invest, only what they spend. Money is of no value unless it is spent, so what difference does it make?

for the truly wealthy that have the bulk of their money growing in investments, their effective rate would be far lower. But as you can see from above, it doesn't take much savings/investment for the consumption tax to go regressive. Sure, among the poor and lower middle income it starts out progressive, but it quickly reverts for those who have larger investments/savings.

Again, money invested and not touched as income, can't be taxed under ANY tax plan! Savings accounts are not taxed! We don't tax WEALTH! We tax INCOME! What fundamental purpose does INCOME have, if you're not going to spend it?