They only problem with high sales tax % is that they end up furthering the black market. Look at NY state where about 70% of all cigarettes are sold outside of normal channels.

If I were in favor of using taxes as a moral hammer/social engineering tool I could give you a whole list of reasons that a sales tax system with varying rates for goods or services would be great, but I think that's a horrible use of government power.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

5/13/2013 12:19:42 PM

Quote :

"This is further exacerbated by things like luxury taxes on certain items."

Luxury tax is the opposite of the modern sales tax. The current sales tax structure might be better called and "essential tax" because the poor spend a higher fraction of their spending on essentials and they pay a higher sales tax rate for it.

Quote :

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

Eventually all income in consumption. Why do they bother working to accumulate wealth they won't spend? Do you think it's some kind of temporary state that the rich are currently saving but will spend it in the future? Investment income is income too.

5/13/2013 12:22:56 PM

Quote :

"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. "

No we are talking about a flat sales tax. The percentage of spending to taxes paid is exactly the same for everyone.


Dtownral, you still arent answering my question on if you think it is fair that anyone can order from the dollar menu and pay the exact same thing for the same item. Fair or not?

5/13/2013 12:27:19 PM

Quote :

"Eventually all income in consumption. Why do they bother working to accumulate wealth they won't spend? Do you think it's some kind of temporary state that the rich are currently saving but will spend it in the future? Investment income is income too."

Most people don't want to cash in their last chip on the day they die. Many people accumulate wealth with the intention of giving their children a better life or to serve a purpose. Bill Gates could be eating gold plated truffles all day long, but instead he's making more of a difference in Africa than anyone since Mandella.

5/13/2013 12:31:59 PM

Quote :

"Dtownral, you still arent answering my question on if you think it is fair that anyone can order from the dollar menu and pay the exact same thing for the same item. Fair or not?"

i answered your question about fairness in that same post:

Quote :

"dtownral: 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)"

lt;dr summary:
its fair if the burden is equal. a flat sales/consumption tax without an income tax is not fair because the burden is not equal. even the most conservative plans acknowledge this and use rebates or tax breaks as a ham-fisted solution

5/13/2013 12:39:26 PM

Please define equal burden. It's clearly not by $ amount, it's also clearly not by percentage, so how do you define it?

5/13/2013 12:40:39 PM

the burden would be the amount you feel it, how hard it is for you to pay it. a percent of your income or wealth would be the best approximation of it.

5/13/2013 12:41:33 PM

So basically tax everyone down to an equal level of destitution? If I make a million I should be taxed $980k, and if I make 21k I should pay $1000. Clearly it can't be that severe, so where do we strike that balance?

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM. Reason : sdfsdd]

5/13/2013 12:44:16 PM

no, that is not at all what i just said


[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM. Reason : also not that I am responding to what is the most "fair", not what I think is needed]

5/13/2013 12:46:51 PM

You also said earlier that it couldn't be a flat percentage, so you're clearly arguing for a progressive tax rate, which is by it's nature an unfair system. The fact that you also said that how difficult it is to pay should be one of the ways by which you measure its quality is just mindblowing.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

5/13/2013 12:51:48 PM

So you are basically saying it isnt fair that businesses charge one price for the same item to everyone and that the sales tax on that same item is exactly the same. Instead a better way is that everyone FEELS the same pain when they buy that item. Bless your heart. Well I honestly dont know what to say to that. I look forward to hearing about your one man protest of every business in america to end the unfair treatment every voluntary customer is facing by being charged the same thing as everyone else. LOL

5/13/2013 12:52:53 PM

in response to the fair question, i just said that the same tax rate for all people as a percentage of income is the most "fair"

* by the other posters proposed definition of fairness
** this is not the plan i would propose
*** i'm talking about taxes, not purchase prices.
**** removed the word "flat" since that was too confusing for eyedrb

c'mon guys, my post was not that hard to understand

edit:

Quote :

"The fact that you also said that how difficult it is to pay should be one of the ways by which you measure its quality is just mindblowing."

nope, i never said that how hard it is to pay is a measure of quality. I said that how hard it is to pay is a measure of how burdensome it is. nothing about that should be particularly mindblowing unless your mind is very simple.


[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 12:53:14 PM

Quote :

" i just said that a flat tax rate based on income or wealth would be the most "fair" "

Then it isn't FLAT. LOL

5/13/2013 12:57:52 PM

define flat

5/13/2013 12:59:25 PM

lol

5/13/2013 1:00:22 PM

i have refined my post and removed the word "flat" since that was confusing for you:

in response to the fair question, i just said that the same tax rate for all people as a percentage of income is the most "fair"

* by the other posters proposed definition of fairness
** this is not the plan i would propose
*** i'm talking about taxes, not purchase prices.
**** removed the word "flat" since that was too confusing for eyedrb

c'mon guys, my post was not that hard to understand

edit:

Quote :

"The fact that you also said that how difficult it is to pay should be one of the ways by which you measure its quality is just mindblowing."

nope, i never said that how hard it is to pay is a measure of quality. I said that how hard it is to pay is a measure of how burdensome it is. nothing about that should be particularly mindblowing unless your mind is very simple.



[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 1:01:14 PM

I guess it's all in what you want out of a tax system.

5/13/2013 1:03:59 PM

profound

5/13/2013 1:05:49 PM

Quote :

" i just said that the same tax rate for all people as a percentage of income is the most "fair" "

You are really all over the place

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 1:08:30 PM

^^There's no point in further discussion, you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes fairness. You probably think curving tests is a great idea.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

5/13/2013 1:09:58 PM

^^well, to start, see:

Quote :

"** this is not the plan i would propose"

i was just responding to your "fairness" question

but, more importantly, what i described wasn't even progressive. i never said anything about increasing the tax rate as the taxable base increases, so I'm not sure that you know what progressive and regressive mean.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:13 PM. Reason : oh, you edited your post, maybe you do know what progressive means?]

5/13/2013 1:12:47 PM

so i've explained what i think is fair, now please explain why its fair for poor people to have a higher tax burden, explain your definition of fairness

5/13/2013 1:14:54 PM

^No I understand what a progressive tax rate is. (isnt that what you are supporting?)

I apologize if I misunderstood your flat tax rate based on income terminology. If your tax rate was income based, then it implies it would change. A flat tax ON income implies it wouldnt change with income. Couple that with your obession over how it isnt fair if one pays a bigger percentage of their income on the taxes on buying a cheeseburger vs anyone else, you can see where I would have gotten that notion.

My definition of fairness is treating everyone the same. PERIOD Like I have said several times the sales tax is a fair tax. People choose what they buy and contribute when they do. It cant easily be used to divide groups of people or create envy. People dont bitch about how much or little the guy in front of him paid in sales tax. You hear it all the time with the progressive income tax. People dont like being discriminated against. And when you are only concerned with equality of outcomes or makeing everyone FEEL the purchase the same, well you are talking about a govt that will only be dispensing discrimination.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 1:16:48 PM

which is why i included that description of flat in the first response that you were so confused about

also, i haven't ever been talking about cheeseburgers. that was you talking to no one else.


so i've jumped through your hoops now, so please explain what fairness means to you, and why poor people having a larger tax burden is fair.

Quote :

"My definition of fairness is treating everyone the same. PERIOD"

so you would support a tax based on income as long as everyone paid the same percentage.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 1:20:06 PM

Quote :

"also, i haven't ever been talking about cheeseburgers. that was you talking to no one else. "

It was never about the cheeseburger, it was about two people making the same purchase and paying the same amount of tax on it. You feel this is terrible bc they both have different incomes. I think that is ridiculous and to correct such a "problem" would be a disaster and would never work.

^would I favor a flat income tax over a progressive income tax? You bet. Do I think it is the best way to go? no. Do I think ANYTHING with change? no

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 1:25:46 PM

so:

Quote :

" Quote : "My definition of fairness is treating everyone the same. PERIOD" so you would support a tax based on income as long as everyone paid the same percentage."

right

since an income tax where everyone pays the same percentage is treating everyone the same, you think its fair and are okay with this. correct?

5/13/2013 1:26:48 PM

Quote :

"so you would support a tax based on income as long as everyone paid the same percentage. "

No, but I agree that it would be fair.

5/13/2013 1:27:09 PM

thanks, I assume that eyedrb will agree with my statement since he posted "PERIOD" so emphatically

5/13/2013 1:37:31 PM

I answered you

"would I favor a flat income tax over a progressive income tax? You bet. Do I think it is the best way to go? no. Do I think ANYTHING with change? no"


Remember you are still only taxing those who work (and report it)

5/13/2013 1:47:40 PM

so now that you have agreed that you are okay with an income tax where everyone would pay the same percentage (since its treating everyone the same, and that's fair), let me add another level.


In this income tax, for every person (seriously, this is for every person), let's add something that is applied to all people. Every person would have this same tax, it treats everyone exactly the same, and since its applied to everyone equally it meets your definition of fairness that you support. For the income (for every person) up to a certain amount, N, the tax rate will be X%. Then, again for every person, the tax rate for the portion >N will be Y%. This is applied to every person, every person has this same tax rate, so its fair, right?

5/13/2013 1:53:40 PM

A single tax rate across the board is only fair is the government doesn't meddle in the economy.

This is the case for compassionate libertarianism.

5/13/2013 2:06:10 PM

^^no, you are now changing the tax rate based on amount of income. You dont see the difference? I know where you are going, and there is no need to go into tax credits on these either. When you start discriminating you start dividing people into different groups and can pair them against each other. "Well we will only raise taxes on THE RICH." type shit which isnt helpful.

^I agree. Which is why it wont happen. Too many votes to buy (with other people's money)



[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 2:06:45 PM

Quote :

"^no, you are now changing the tax rate based on amount of income."

the tax rates for each person are exactly the same, its applied exactly the same to every person. that meets your definition of fair. (remember "PERIOD"?)

Every single person, rich or poor, pays the same tax rate X% for income up to N. And every single person, rich or poor, pays the same tax rate Y% for the segment of income above N. The rate X% only applies up to N, the rate Y% only applies after N. If someone's income is over N, they still pay X% up to N. This is the same for every person, rich or poor, its all the exact same rate.

example:
set N = to $.01 (a penny).

For every person, the first penny of their income is taxed at X%. The rest of their income is taxed at Y%. This is true equally for every person, it meets your definition of fair.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM. Reason : PERIOD]

5/13/2013 2:16:47 PM

So how does where we're at now in this thread relate to the OP? Can I get a summary?

5/13/2013 2:20:49 PM

Summary:

a plan was proposed but it was so ridiculous that even republicans backed away. so in summary, we are less like Louisiana than when OP was made.

5/13/2013 2:22:20 PM

So I say I support treating EVERYONE the same, period. So you then say well we will tax people differently bc of how much income they make and that is the SAME so I should support it? (because the people at certain levels are taxed the same) Nice

Now if you just kept the same tax rate, then the people who earned more would still pay more. AND they will be treated THE SAME as everyone else who pays income taxes.

This is still taxing only people who work and report it. btw

5/13/2013 2:28:16 PM

if your sales tax isn't taxing anyone differently, mine is also not taxing anyone differently. Those rates apply the same to every person equally, every person has the same tax rate. the rich guy and poor guy both pay X % to a penny and Y% after a penny. It's not differentiating by income, the rich guy is not getting different tax rates.

Basically, I question if you (and any person who proposes sales taxes as a solution to unfair income taxes) understand how marginal tax rates work.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 2:30:48 PM

Quote :

"if your sales tax isn't taxing anyone differently, mine is also not taxing anyone differently."

So the sales tax rate changes?

5/13/2013 2:36:02 PM

my tax rates are not changing for any two people, any two people have the same tax rate in that example

5/13/2013 2:36:41 PM

so one tax rate is the same as a changing tax rate depending on how much you earn. LOL

"my tax rates are not changing for any two people"

Quote :

"the rich guy and poor guy both pay X % to a penny and Y% after a penny."

And this equals to both paying X% across the board? Or is X=Y? LOL, holy shit

Bless your heart. You have a good day and good luck.

5/13/2013 2:41:28 PM

eyedrb:

Quote :

"My definition of fairness is treating everyone the same. PERIOD"

Every person is treated to those rates the same. They are X% and Y% for every person. PERIOD

I don't think you know how marginal rates work

5/13/2013 2:45:24 PM

I know exactly how they work, and the rate changes as you cross income levels.

I said I support treating everyone the same. So lets go back to that dollar cheeseburger.

And lets say you support charging everyone a bit more if they are over 6 ft tall. And that is treating everyone the same bc everyone under 6ft pays the same amount and everyone over pays a different amount. And somehow in your mind EVERYONE in this is treated exactly the same. LOL

5/13/2013 2:53:52 PM

but the rates don't change per person, every person is "treated the same"

Let's assume you make $80k (i'm not implying anything by this, just throwing out a number)

You and Al Gore and Barack Obama and Kanye West, etc... all pay the same tax rate on that $80k of income. By your own definition of fair, that you posted, that is fair. PERIOD

*it's fair by your definition, I'm not making conclusions based on my definition. By my definition, it would not be fair.
**to me, fairness is not the only metric to decide tax policy, to me

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 2:59:15 PM

Quote :

" My definition of fairness is treating everyone the same. PERIOD"

This isn't a correct definition of fairness. We don't treat old people and children the same, we don't treat men and women the same, we don't treat people with down's syndrome the same, etc., etc.

It's naive and shortsighted to not consider how power, wealth, and democracy interplay with each other.

And you allege nothing would change under a different tax structure, but this view is ignorant to history, as things HAVE changed over time.

Trickle down has proven a tragic failure over the past 30 years, unsurprisingly.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-why-brazilians-happy-slow-growth-brazil

Quote :

"To see how the distribution of growth affects incomes, imagine a country of just ten people, with one earning $1,000 a month, another earning $2,000 a month, and so on up to the tenth, who earns $10,000 a month. Between them, these ten people earn $55,000 a month. Now suppose that in a year the economy grows by a modest 1.8%, so that there is an extra $1,000 to go around each month. If the richest person captures all that growth, it will give him a 10% pay boost. But he will hardly feel it, because he is already rich, and the average pay rise across the entire population would be just 1%. But if the poorest resident got all the extra money, his income would double. That would make a huge difference to his life—and the average pay rise in our little country would be a whopping 10%, far higher than the meagre overall growth rate. In general, the more of the $1,000 that goes to those on lower incomes, the bigger the average pay rise it causes, and the more impact it has."

I'm not sure why anyone would think a naive, simplistic model of a flat regressive tax is the best type of tax.

5/13/2013 3:05:24 PM

Quote :

"You and Al Gore and Barack Obama and Kanye West, etc... all pay the same tax rate on that $80k of income. By your own definition of fair, that you posted, that is fair. PERIOD "

how is that not fair? why should kanye pay more in taxes for making 800k, just because i only made a fraction of that? i'm perfectly fine paying the same tax rates as millionaires.

the disconnect here is that to dtownral and many others, "fair" doesn't equate to "equal". it equates to completely arbitrary threshholds that automatically make higher earners have to pay more, just because it's arrogantly assumed "they can afford it". that shouldn't fucking matter. my only definition of "fair" treatment is everyone playing by the exact same rules and paying the exact same tax rate across the board. Of course the poor will have a tougher time making ends meet. they're fucking poor.

the pissing and moaning over how unfair our taxes are has gotten so tiresome. the "1%" will pay almost 30 percent of the country's taxes this year. forty-some-odd percent will pay NO income taxes at all. let those people start paying even 1%, 2% of what they make, and then maybe i'll entertain a little more bitching about how lopsided our fiscal system is.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 3:13:07 PM

Moron we are talking about tax policy, not whether someone can wipe their own ass or pee standing up.

If you dont think everyone paying the same rate is fair, that is fine. I cant help ya. But we sure dont tax men and women differently on income either. Maybe that will be the next suggestion from you guys. Im sure you cant drum up a reason for that too. haha


And you realize states already have sales taxes(naive, simplistic model of a flat regressive tax). Some dont have any income taxes. Amazing isnt it.

5/13/2013 3:15:19 PM

you also realize they have all kinds of rebates, exclusions, and refunds and end up not being the simple thing that you described, right? that they are unfair by your definition?

5/13/2013 3:17:15 PM

Quote :

"you also realize they have all kinds of rebates, exclusions, and refunds and end up not being the simple thing that you described, right? that they are unfair by your definition?"

Doesnt have to be. And it is a hell of a lot simpler than income taxes dont you think?

5/13/2013 3:28:57 PM

it does, actually, have to be like that

5/13/2013 3:37:50 PM