http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/07/2876647/senate-gop-to-debut-major-tax.html

Quote :

"A far-reaching plan proposed by Republicans in the state Senate would slow government spending and affect the wallet of every North Carolinian as it slashes income tax rates and raises the cost of food, prescription drugs and more than 100 tax-exempt services Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/07/2876647/senate-gop-to-debut-major-tax.html#storylink=cpy"

I can think of no better way to completely destroy the economy than this.

5/8/2013 11:18:17 AM

beat me to it, was about to post that.

Now I think I'll research better states to live in

5/8/2013 11:21:00 AM

Under the Dome with some things to think about:

Quote :

"1. POISON PILLS: The Senate's tax proposal is so loaded with so-called poison pills, the lobbying corp is going crazy. Hordes of lobbyists tried to squeeze into the press conference but were kept out by the sergeant at arms to reserve room for press. The idea of revoking sales tax refunds for nonprofits along -- heres looking at you UNC Hospitals -- could cripple the plan, not to mention taking prescription drugs, food and some Social Security income. 2. NO AGREEMENT: Gov. Pat McCrory and House leaders weren't standing next to Senate leader Phil Berger when he rolled out the plan -- and neither were many senators for that matter. The optics and lack of support from the GOP power trio can't be underplayed. 3. THE TIMELINE: There's no bill -- and Berger aides say it could be two weeks before the plan is put in writing. So it looks like late May or even early June before the legislation gets a thorough vetting. Berger said he released the tentative outline because everyone wanted to know what was in the proposal and they didn't want to make it look like rushed it through at the end of session. But that appearance will be hard to dispel until there's a bill. SIDENOTE -- Don't make July Fourth plans: The end of the legislative session is setting up to be a train wreck. The Senate is weeks behind on a budget -- which isn't likely until after May 16 crossover -- meaning the House won't get it until late May or early June. And then there's the tax plan -- all in the final month of session. It looks like Speaker Thom Tillis' mid-June adjournment goal is shot. "

My first reaction was that a very republican tax bill would be rubber stamped, but I'm thinking this will be quite a bit more contentious. Reforming tax codes, especially sweeping ones, can be complicated and is rarely easy. I still imagine they will eventually get something through and signed into law. I'm just hoping for some really nasty debate and a larger realization that this could actually raise taxes on a significant part of the republican base

5/8/2013 12:00:20 PM

^^Sure you will.

You came back from Canada just for Obama's administration too, right?

[Edited on May 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM. Reason : -]

5/8/2013 12:00:59 PM

Yes, there's nothing worse than a lowered income tax. Hell, if that god awful internet state tax bill gets defeated I'll be even happier.

5/9/2013 1:35:55 AM

You do know regressive taxes are bad for jobs and the economy, right?

5/9/2013 9:56:57 AM

but trickle down!

5/9/2013 10:00:10 AM

hello no, if i lived in Canada i would have stayed there.

5/9/2013 10:03:40 AM

Louisiana has gumbo, Mardis Gras, and New Orleans.

Try Mississippi

5/9/2013 11:53:12 AM

Quote :

"You do know regressive taxes are bad for jobs and the economy, right? "

yet states with no income taxes are doing pretty well in those areas. Strange

5/9/2013 12:06:29 PM

Exodus

5/9/2013 12:09:55 PM

^^ name 3

5/9/2013 1:22:28 PM

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/down-the-up-staircase/

5/9/2013 2:46:39 PM

From the OP:

Quote :

"A married couple with two children making $30,000 a year would pay an estimated $1,000 more in taxes each year... By contrast, a single taxpayer making $200,000 would get a $6,000 break... At the bottom line, the plan does not raise as much money at it cuts, leading to a $250 million reduction in state revenue in the first year and $1?billion less after three years..."

5/10/2013 9:55:00 AM

in Louisiana everyone loved the idea of replacing income tax with sales tax until they found out how high the sales tax would need to be for the change to be revenue neutral. Now Bobby Jindal is less popular than Obama in Louisiana.

The response is usually, "well we should cut revenue." but since that rarely happens (under either party), at the very least they should be required to detail how exactly they will cut revenue before moving to a regressive consumption tax.

5/10/2013 12:14:46 PM

The issue with consumption tax is that we have conflicting and contradicting motivations with tax policy.

The reason the rich are insulated from the sales tax burden is that they do more of what we encourage. It's the rich that save (kind of the entire point of being rich), and we lavishly reward people saving for retirement, although legalistically you could count any wealth toward that! We're all alive and could presumably enjoy our savings without working between now and our death.

Why should it be okay that the top 1% pay virtually no sales tax? How is this an implicit assumption in the discussion?

5/10/2013 1:36:16 PM

Quote :

" The reason the rich are insulated from the sales tax burden is that they do more of what we encourage. "

Insulated? I would imagine the rich, on average, pay (a lot) more sales tax than lower income levels.

And moron your share of family income stair step is true of ANY good. Your first graph would look exactly the same if it were percentage of household income on a burger off the dollar menu. Which Im sure you will propose we should have to show our W2s at McDonalds so they can properly charge us a "fair" price. What a world that would be.

[Edited on May 12, 2013 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2013 10:52:38 AM

They pay a much smaller percentage, that's why its regressive

to me, as a matter of how "insulated" someone feels, percentage is more important than total amount, to me

5/12/2013 11:49:56 AM

^ eyedrb has never grasped why taxes shouldn't be regressive in the ~10 years I've been posting here.

5/12/2013 12:13:33 PM

ah.

and yes, eyedrb, if you made the cost of things progressive, then a flat percentage of those progressive costs could make the regressive tax neutral or progressive. no one has suggested that though because its a dumb way to create a progressive tax.

5/12/2013 12:27:13 PM

my point is people always talk about how "unfair" something is because someone pays a different percentage of their net worth vs someone else. I just think that is a terrible way to try to make policy and run a society as that number is different for EVERYONE and it leaves out individual choice and how much one person NEEDS whatever item they are buying.

Moron, I just don't see the value in govt discrimination. I don't see people bitching about how much sales tax the person in front of them paid, EVER. Everyone pays the same percentage, the definition of fair.

Moron, has it really been 10 years? wow

[Edited on May 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2013 4:38:45 PM

so, to be clear, your position is that this proposal is good because it is regressive, right?

5/12/2013 4:57:38 PM

If everyone paying 1 dollar for an item off the dollar menu is "regressive" to you, then yes. Again, I don't see people bitching because someone paid the exact same thing (and tax) for an item.

Dtownral, I would favor a straight consumption tax as our only tax. (will never happen)

5/12/2013 7:40:00 PM

Its not regressive by me, its regressive by definition

If someone has an income of $1 then that is 100% of their income. If someone else makes $100, that is just 1% of their income. Thus... regressive.

5/12/2013 7:48:12 PM

So you feel that charging everyone 1 dollar for the same item is unfair?

5/12/2013 8:41:36 PM

Are we talking about taxes or purchase prices?

about taxes, no, regressive taxes are bad

5/12/2013 8:55:07 PM

Sidenote, If you're salary is $1, then you should be eating ramen, not spending your whole paycheck on the dollar menu.

5/12/2013 9:15:57 PM

eyedrb, consider the fact that your advice on economic policy is about as useful as economist advising you on how to fix a cataract.

5/12/2013 10:34:19 PM

Quote :

"Sidenote, If you're salary is $1, then you should be eating ramen, not spending your whole paycheck on the dollar menu."

or take a bus fare to the nearest bridge to jump off, because you can't live on a $1 salary

5/12/2013 10:45:41 PM

Quote :

"I don't see people bitching about how much sales tax the person in front of them paid, EVER. Everyone pays the same percentage, the definition of fair."

This image shows that the rich pay a lower percentage for sales tax.

The argument expressed in this quote here is patently incorrect. If someone is arguing that sales tax is fair, they need to clarify if they:
- don't believe that the rich pay a lower percent of consumption to sales tax
- or believe that the rich paying a lower rate is fair

Both of these options are fairly incoherent. To be as generous as possible to our slightly-more-conservative brethren, I would have to imagine they are talking about mythical form of sales tax that could be applied equally to all consumption. Legislating such a thing would be about as close to impossible as imaginable in the context of the modern US.

Basically, that prickly detail is what this entire shouting match boils down to. Conservatives put fourth the sales issue thinking 2 x 2 = 4, but if that multiplication operator includes tax deductions then it's not fucking multiplication people!

5/12/2013 11:01:29 PM

Even the super simple "fair tax" was going to include rebates and other things as a ham-fisted way to make it less regressive, even they understand that a regressive tax is a problem. Its not even, rich people have a lower tax rate in consumption taxes.

Eyrdb, if a flat consumption tax ia ao fair, what's the point of rebates in the fair tax proposal?

5/13/2013 8:01:31 AM

Here's a novel idea: let's wait until they actually finish the bill before knocking it.

Your article references this magical calculator posted on a website that's supposed to support this bill, but the article didn't link to that website. I would like to see this calculator to see how I would be affected.

And while lower income families might spend more of their income on stuff they need, your rich are going to spend more of their income on stuff they don't need. This figure might not be proportionate, but neither are the current income tax rates.

Even when I was poor, I thought the progressive tax was unfair. For the life of me, I don't see how everyone justifies the case that just because you make more, you should pay more. Are you just assuming that rich people have made their money on the backs of the poor, therefore their evil should be paid back? Sure there are a lot of unsavory wealthy out there, but it doesn't apply to everyone.

A consumption, or fair tax, to me is just that...fair.

5/13/2013 8:24:55 AM

how about the fair tax plan, do you support that?

5/13/2013 8:36:56 AM

the poor benefit much more from government programs. therefore they should pay more for those programs.

OMFG PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY USE? THE INJUSTICE!!!

5/13/2013 9:17:11 AM

I'd argue that the rich benefit more by not being murdered by the poor, but that's just how I see things.

5/13/2013 9:57:09 AM

even if you taxed poor people 100%, it wouldn't pay for those programs

since poor people are really poor

5/13/2013 10:31:15 AM

The sum-total amount of what the poor own is basically trivial. This is an easy case to make with anecdotal examples or with numbers. The bottom half of income earners has a combined net worth of about zero.

Quote :

"Are you just assuming that rich people have made their money on the backs of the poor, therefore their evil should be paid back? Sure there are a lot of unsavory wealthy out there, but it doesn't apply to everyone."

Just get rid of the benefits government provides to capital ownership and we'll be even. Land ownership is market distortion because people own land (a necessity for the poor) but didn't produce that land. Not only did the rich not forge the Earth and its biosphere with their own hands from supernova remnants, but they didn't even pay someone else to do it!

There is no moral argument for land ownership. The same applies for patents, which are 100% utilitarian. If patent ownership had a philosophical basis, then you would never be able to sue someone for infringement if they independently thought of and implemented the idea.

If we limit capital to strictly the products of labor, then you'll have the libertarian argument that "wealth is a product of voluntary interactions". Current you do not have claim to that argument.

5/13/2013 10:36:30 AM

Quote :

"the poor benefit much more from government programs. therefore they should pay more for those programs. "

What the hell are you talking about? That defeats the whole purpose.

5/13/2013 10:50:10 AM

Quote :

"This image shows that the rich pay a lower percentage for sales tax. "

Lower percentage of their INCOME to the sales tax. I would imagine they pay much more in sales tax than the poor. Also everyone pays the same PERCENTAGE on their purchase. Which is the definition of FAIR.

Quote :

"Are we talking about taxes or purchase prices? "

In my example it doesnt matter. If the purchase prices is the same, then the taxes paid on that purchase will be the same. I know, earth shattering stuff here.

5/13/2013 11:12:30 AM

why is it fair that the rich pay a lower percentage of their income?

5/13/2013 11:13:31 AM

^so you would argue it is NOT fair that a rich person can buy off the dollar menu with everyone else? Do you hear how that sounds? He is spending a lower percentage of his income, oh noes!!!

5/13/2013 11:32:59 AM

i'm talking about taxes, you're the one obsessing about McDonalds

5/13/2013 11:37:10 AM

Quote :

"Also everyone pays the same PERCENTAGE on their purchase. Which is the definition of FAIR. "

UGH

The rich pay a lower PERCENTAGE of their spending to sales tax. Why have you not comprehended this yet?

5/13/2013 11:37:24 AM

let me put this another way for you eyedrb:

based on your understanding of fairness, you are saying that you are okay with your tax burden increasing because that would be more fair. that's what you are arguing for, more taxes for yourself.

5/13/2013 11:39:49 AM

You pay 5%, I pay 5%. This is fair. How have you not comprehended this yet. I'm sorry that one of us has less disposable income, that doesn't make it somehow unfair nor does it justify taking more of the wealthier persons income.

Everyone understands it, you're just arguing two different points and you're both failing to recognize that legitimate arguments for both exist. It's kind of entertaining watching this retarded back and forth.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 11:45 AM. Reason : sdfsf]

5/13/2013 11:43:52 AM

Except that we don't both pay 5%, the poor person would pay much more than 5% and the rich person much less than 5%

And, I'm making some assumptions about how much you make, but you and I will pay more than we currently do

5/13/2013 11:47:12 AM

Quote :

"You pay 5%, I pay 5%. This is fair. How have you not comprehended this yet."

No, "we" don't, provided we're speaking of a rich person and a poor person.

Let's say the economy is a grocery store. The poor family buys $4,000 worth of prepared food from fast food and $8,000 on housing. The rich family buys $6,000 of food and $50,000 on housing.

The food is taxed at a higher rate than the housing. Rich family walks out paying a lower percentage. If you want to know about the real world, I have a good graph for you. Perhaps you've seen it before, but it was only posted twice in this thread so far. Apparently not enough.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/staircase.png

5/13/2013 11:51:11 AM

No, if the sales tax is 5%, we're both paying 5% in tax on our purchases. I get what you're saying, those on the lower end of the income scale pay a greater percentage of their income in sales tax. Those on the higher end may pay a lower percentage of their income in sales tax, but probably still pay a significantly higher amount in sales tax. This is further exacerbated by things like luxury taxes on certain items.

Maybe, and I'm just postulating here, a higher sales tax might reduce consumption of non-essential goods by those who can't afford them and lead to socially advantageous changes in spending patterns. We love that, right, social engineering through taxation?

Quote :

"The food is taxed at a higher rate than the housing. Rich family walks out paying a lower percentage. If you want to know about the real world, I have a good graph for you. Perhaps you've seen it before, but it was only posted twice in this thread so far. Apparently not enough."

Yes, I understand, and this is still fair. You can post that graph a million times, but you're still making a shitty argument about what constitutes fairness in a tax system.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 11:55 AM. Reason : sdfsf]

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM. Reason : sdf]

5/13/2013 11:53:17 AM

Quote :

"i'm talking about taxes, you're the one obsessing about McDonalds "

You wont answer my question on whether you think that is fair or not.

Quote :

"The rich pay a lower PERCENTAGE of their spending to sales tax. "

I think you are confused. The rich and poor will spend the exact same percentage of their spending on the sales tax, bc it is a flat rate. A person can spend 500 or 5000, the percentage of tax paid on spending is exactly the same. I think you mean the rich pay a lower percentage of their income/net worth to a sales tax than the poor.

5/13/2013 12:14:04 PM

i would agree that its "fair" if people paid the same taxes as a percentage of how much money they have or earned, but it is not "fair" to pay the same taxes as a percent of what they buy or consume. fairness to me should be based on the tax burden, and it is unfair for people with more money to have less of a tax burden.

(and I put fair in quotations because, for the sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring the reality that this still wouldn't be fair to poor people because they are too poor. It's a reality that even conservatives acknowledge by adding tax credits or rebate plans to even the most conservative flat tax plans)

edit:

Quote :

"I think you are confused. The rich and poor will spend the exact same percentage of their spending on the sales tax, bc it is a flat rate"

no, you're confused by his point, he is pointing out that the things that the rich people spend a lot more money on are usually taxed at lower rates. so its less.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 12:17:40 PM