National Sales Tax in Lieu of Income Tax

[strandinthewind]

Finally, this a$$ makes a sensible statement!!!!!!!!! But, I still ain't votin for him!!!!!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/11/news/economy/election_bush_tax.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Bush: Sales tax in, income tax out?
President says replacing current system with sales tax is an idea we should 'explore seriously.'
August 11, 2004: 8:38 AM EDT

NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush said Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering.

"It's an interesting idea," Bush told an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum here. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."

Republican economists who speak regularly to the White House have said that the Bush campaign has been mulling the idea of an overhaul of the tax code as part of an agenda for a second term should Bush win reelection.

Some lawmakers have floated ideas of simplifying the tax code by putting in place a "flat" income tax rate or a national sales tax. But those ideas have so far not gained much traction in Congress.

Opponents say such a system would not be in the best interests of the poor and the middle class who would pay the same tax rate as the wealthy even though they have less disposable income.

[dissention]

This is ludicrous. Sales taxes are simply a form of regressive taxation. If Shrub thinks anyone is going to buy into this, he's crazier than I imagined. The rate would have to be between 15-20% in addition to state and local taxes. Who the hell can afford paying a quarter on each dollar? The lower a persons income is, the more they spend. It would be absurd. It's not a flat rate, it's an increasing percentage the less you make. A poor person could end up paying 50% in taxes, while a CEO could end up paying 6%. Yesterday Shrub claimed that the tax cuts didn't benefit the wealthy because they always found ways to dodge paying taxes!

[strandinthewind]

This is ludicrous. Sales taxes are simply a form of regressive taxation. If Shrub thinks anyone is going to buy into this, he's crazier than I imagined. The rate would have to be between 15-20% in addition to state and local taxes. Who the hell can afford paying a quarter on each dollar? The lower a persons income is, the more they spend. It would be absurd. It's not a flat rate, it's an increasing percentage the less you make. A poor person could end up paying 50% in taxes, while a CEO could end up paying 6%. Yesterday Shrub claimed that the tax cuts didn't benefit the wealthy because they always found ways to dodge paying taxes!

You are saying the sales tax would have to be 15 - 20% or the flat tax? Personally, I am for both. But, recognize the poor would have to betaken into account in some way. BTW - I was praising his willingness to look at the current tax system, which is the current cause and/or the effect of most of the injustices in govt. So much lobbying goes into the tax codes and that lobbying is sometimes not in the best interests of the working man. So, I think we should redo the way we are taxed and no one under any circumstances pay a net of 20% in actual personal Federal Taxes, talk about stimulate the economy. I think it would be an cool study to see how much people actually pay in taxes (few actually pay their stated federal rate), the most popular deductions, their effect on the economy, etc. I mean if mortgage int. deductions are really good for the economy (after all most of this recovery was initially based on this) then they should be kept. But, in the end such a report would end up being bought by the lobbyist. Cynical of me to say, but IMO sadly true.

[dissention]

You are saying the sales tax would have to be 15 - 20% or the flat tax? Personally, I am for both. But, recognize the poor would have to betaken into account in some way. BTW - I was praising his willingness to look at the current tax system, which is the current cause and/or the effect of most of the injustices in govt. So much lobbying goes into the tax codes and that lobbying is sometimes not in the best interests of the working man. So, I think we should redo the way we are taxed and no one under any circumstances pay a net of 20% in actual personal Federal Taxes, talk about stimulate the economy. I think it would be an cool study to see how much people actually pay in taxes (few actually pay their stated federal rate), the most popular deductions, their effect on the economy, etc. I mean if mortgage int. deductions are really good for the economy (after all most of this recovery was initially based on this) then they should be kept. But, in the end such a report would end up being bought by the lobbyist. Cynical of me to say, but IMO sadly true.

Maybe I didn't word it the best way possible. LOL

The federal tax would be a flat rate. However, local and state taxes would vary depending ont he state, so the actual taxation wouldn't come out to a flat rate in the end. Then, you have to take into account how much a person makes. For example, I could be quite poor and end up paying 50% of my income in taxes. Joe Celebrity who makes $50 million a year could end up paying 5%. While they would obviously be paying more, my standard of living would sure as hell go down the toilet because so much of my money is being taken from me. I think that in order for this "plan" to have any effect on Bush's poll numbers (which is the sole reason he's trumpeting this ridiculous proposal), he going to have to do a lot more than say "Forget income taxes, we'll go for sales taxes." That would seem nice to your regular stupid person and they would more than likely buy it. But if they don't want to be worried about how they're going to be able to afford tampons and toothpaste, they have to realize what he's proposing. I highly doubt that he'll take the poor into consideration. And I don't think he's just willing to look at these things now, him and his cronies have been pushing for this for a long time, albeit under the radar until his reelection comes closer and closer.

[strandinthewind]

Maybe I didn't word it the best way possible. LOL

The federal tax would be a flat rate. However, local and state taxes would vary depending ont he state, so the actual taxation wouldn't come out to a flat rate in the end. Then, you have to take into account how much a person makes. For example, I could be quite poor and end up paying 50% of my income in taxes. Joe Celebrity who makes $50 million a year could end up paying 5%. While they would obviously be paying more, my standard of living would sure as hell go down the toilet because so much of my money is being taken from me. I think that in order for this "plan" to have any effect on Bush's poll numbers (which is the sole reason he's trumpeting this ridiculous proposal), he going to have to do a lot more than say "Forget income taxes, we'll go for sales taxes." That would seem nice to your regular stupid person and they would more than likely buy it. But if they don't want to be worried about how they're going to be able to afford tampons and toothpaste, they have to realize what he's proposing. I highly doubt that he'll take the poor into consideration. And I don't think he's just willing to look at these things now, him and his cronies have been pushing for this for a long time, albeit under the radar until his reelection comes closer and closer.

ITA!!!!! :cool:

[dissention]

ITA!!!!! :cool:

:eek:

Someone get a space heater, it's freezing in hell!

[Patti]

What a bunch of hogwash. The only reason this came up is because he thinks floating this trial balloon will get him re-elected. A national sales tax is a horrible idea, per what Dissention said. If I haven't said so before, I HATE Bush.

[Patti]

:eek:

Someone get a space heater, it's freezing in hell!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Finally, this a$$ makes a sensible statement!!!!!!!!! But, I still ain't votin for him!!!!!!!



This is ridiculous. It's a regressive tax. The rate would have to be somewhere around 20%. It would hit lower income brackets the hardest. :distress:
If you think the economy is bad now, wait until this gets put into play.

[estranged4life]

that will fly so well here in Oklahoma, Hardy-har-har...

I mean get a frikkin' clue Shrub ya dumb ass

Brian "Read my taxes...no new lips" j.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

What Bush doesnt realize, like you all said, if this tax did go into effect...and say it was a 20% sales tax...if I bought something for $500, an extra $100 would be added to that...that would hit many people hard...especially since federal income taxes are taken out of one's check gradually... If a lower income person only makes $200 one week, say around $35 in fed. income tax would be taken out that week....it doesn't feel like as a big of a hit...
And it definetely should not be the more you spend, the more federal taxes you pay...If someone spends $1000 total that month in the store, they would be paying about $200 more in taxes that month, rather than say $70 they would have paid if they had an average 7% sales tax...Many people would maybe prefer this, but many people would not.....I doubt this would actually go into effect...and didnt you say if it did we would still be paying state/local taxes out of our checks right?

Chris

[strandinthewind]

I think most economists are thinking the national sales tax woould be less than 10% and more than likely about 5%. I think the 20% number Dissention referred to earlier was a flat income tax, which is different than a sales tax. In the end, I think a sales tax is the fairest of all because really rich people would pay way more taxes than the lower level income people. But, I think there need to be independant studies, etc. I think many if not people now pay an effective Federal Income tax rate of less than 20% once all the deductions are considered. So, a 20% flat income tax would mean more federal income taxes for a lot of people :laugh:

[dissention]

I think most economists are thinking the national sales tax woould be less than 10% and more than likely about 5%. I think the 20% number Dissention referred to earlier was a flat income tax, which is different than a sales tax. In the end, I think a sales tax is the fairest of all because really rich people would pay way more taxes than the lower level income people. But, I think there need to be independant studies, etc. I think many if not people now pay an effective Federal Income tax rate of less than 20% once all the deductions are considered. So, a 20% flat income tax would mean more federal income taxes for a lot of people :laugh:

The 20% number is what the federal sales tax rate would have to be. They simply can't make it a 5-7% sales tax that we're all used to or else the whole country would go bust. It has to be at least 20%, especially when you add state and local taxes to it. It would be 20% easily.

As for the rich, of course they would pay more in taxes. But think about it for a minute. When you factor the percentage they're being taxed to what they actually have for loot, they're perfectly fine. A flat federal sales tax is a rich bastards wet dream, Jason. They'd probably be taxed 5-10% of what they made, but like I said, someone who makes a very low salary might get 50% of their paycheck taken away when they go out and purchase things throughout the year. They're going to be hurting for tampons and toothpaste.

[strandinthewind]

The 20% number is what the federal sales tax rate would have to be. They simply can't make it a 5-7% sales tax that we're all used to or else the whole country would go bust. It has to be at least 20%, especially when you add state and local taxes to it. It would be 20% easily.

As for the rich, of course they would pay more in taxes. But think about it for a minute. When you factor the percentage they're being taxed to what they actually have for loot, they're perfectly fine. A flat federal sales tax is a rich bastards wet dream, Jason. They'd probably be taxed 5-10% of what they made, but like I said, someone who makes a very low salary might get 50% of their paycheck taken away when they go out and purchase things throughout the year. They're going to be hurting for tampons and toothpaste.

Again, I think it needs to be studied. I am not advocating it one way or the other. I do, however think it has some merit that needs to be examined. For instance, the so so rich (20 million or less) would most certainly pay a significant portion when you count in houses, cars, travel, maintence, etc. But, you are right, the really really rich (over $20 million) probably would wind up paying less depending on their spending habits. But, the reality is that even now, the really really rich could care a less from that vantage point. They will with a little financial planning seemingly always have money if they just spend the interest, etc. Of course, I think the whole way in which we are all taxed is just insane and is nothing more than a way to line the pockets of the most successful lobbyists. That is why I keep coming back to the flat income tax of proabably 15 to 20% with no deductions at all. I think that is the fairest way. But, no one will ever agree on the amount people are to be taxed because people think other people that make $200,000 or more (the higher tax rate) are rolling in money, automatically evil, and should pay 75% :laugh:

[dissention]

But, no one will ever agree on the amount people are to be taxed because people think other people that make $200,000 or more (the higher tax rate) are rolling in money, automatically evil, and should pay 75% :laugh:

I don't think they're evil, I just think a system like that that would pay teachers and firefighters $30,000 a year is evil. ;)

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I think most economists are thinking the national sales tax woould be less than 10% and more than likely about 5%.


What would be the point in that? Most states are now already at around 10% in their sales tax...Georgia in most places has a 7% sales tax, and where I live will raise to 8% very soon...if this tax was to go in to effect it would definetely be more around the 20% mark.....taxes/social security make up about 18% of my check....it would definetely be ATLEAST 10% added to the already 5-9% most already pay in sales tax, putting it somewhere around the 20 mark


Chris

[sparky]

But if they don't want to be worried about how they're going to be able to afford tampons and toothpaste, they have to realize what he's proposing.

Damn, the taxes on tampons and toothpaste would just about kill me ! :laugh:

[sparky]

But, no one will ever agree on the amount people are to be taxed because people think other people that make $200,000 or more (the higher tax rate) are rolling in money, automatically evil, and should pay 75% :laugh:

This is so subjective. 200k a year is so NOT rich. Not in major metropolitan areas anyway. But then again, 1200 sq.ft. dives in my neighborhood are selling for 650k. Maybe my perception in screwy.
Still, when you think about an average family of 4 with cars, mortgages, toys, insurance, hired help to raise the kids - the bills add up awfully fast. Then 200k starts to look like not so much.

[dissention]

Damn, the taxes on tampons and toothpaste would just about kill me ! :laugh:

:laugh: Wise ass!

[dissention]

What would be the point in that? Most states are now already at around 10% in their sales tax...Georgia in most places has a 7% sales tax, and where I live will raise to 8% very soon...if this tax was to go in to effect it would definetely be more around the 20% mark.....taxes/social security make up about 18% of my check....it would definetely be ATLEAST 10% added to the already 5-9% most already pay in sales tax, putting it somewhere around the 20 mark


Chris

There would be no point. In order to generate the revenue from the current tax laws, the federal sales tax rate would have to be at least 20%. Add another 8-10% for local and state. It's a nightmare. I guess I'm lucky because I only pay 5% sales tax. Although those in New Hampshire don't pay any. :o

[strandinthewind]

This is so subjective. 200k a year is so NOT rich. Not in major metropolitan areas anyway. But then again, 1200 sq.ft. dives in my neighborhood are selling for 650k. Maybe my perception in screwy.
Still, when you think about an average family of 4 with cars, mortgages, toys, insurance, hired help to raise the kids - the bills add up awfully fast. Then 200k starts to look like not so much.

I know, but that is the bench mark most economist use because for some reason. I readily admit that $200,000 in a major metropolitan area does not put even a single person in the lap of luxury to an outrageous extent, although they certainly would be in comfort :cool:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I know, but that is the bench mark most economist use because for some reason. I readily admit that $200,000 in a major metropolitan area does not put even a single person in the lap of luxury to an outrageous extent, although they certainly would be in comfort :cool:


I know isnt that weird though...how some can make 200k and just be "Comfortable" and others can make $45k per year and live just as comfortable.....My family does not make anywhere near 200k per year, and lives very comfortable, and is able to buy luxuries, and go out, and have nice cars, and a nice big house, and not be in debt so far you cant get out, and there are people making over 200k per year who dont even live as good...its very odd
---
My parents have 4 kids (including myself, who still doesnt pay rent) living at home, bills that add up, mortgages, cars, many bills, so to me 200k per year is rich , because if we had that we would be living rich lol

Chris
Chris

[estranged4life]

I wished these POLITICAL A-HOLES would quit taxing the living s--t outta those of us who are married, middle class and have no children...

Brian "The System Will Fail" j.

[Patti]

I wished these POLITICAL A-HOLES would quit taxing the living s--t outta those of us who are married, middle class and have no children...

Brian "The System Will Fail" j.

Or the single, middle class and have no children.

[celestenadia]

I've had my own business for 12 years, primarily service oriented but I do some retail. Sales tax in general to me is BS. First of all, I'm poor. I live in a one bed room apartment and drive
a Toyota. Why should I have to collect money for the state, when I hardly make any money myself? Now I gotta start collecting money for the federal government? WTF?

[strandinthewind]

If you have employees, you already do because you have to match the SS taxes :shrug:

[celestenadia]

I don't have any.

[strandinthewind]

AHHHHHHHH - well there goes that point :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: