Taxes...


  1. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    Someone posted about abolishing income tax and just using a sales tax...

    I imagine, we'd still have property tax and things like that but do you think that could work? It seems like there could be a whole underbelly of people paying each other for "services" to avoid this... oh like we do now... What do you guys think? I imagine it would make stuff really expensive but how much more so?

    Advertisement
  2. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member

    Well, individual income taxes make up $915B (43%) of federal receipts. So the sales tax would have to be set at a level to generate that much money. I imagine that would be a pretty substantial sales tax. 30%? 40%? 50%? I don't know exactly.

    Also, services are subject to sales tax.
  3. foreWard

    foreWard Well-Known Member

    I like the idea, but have no studies/research to show how well it would work. I think that if we have less income tax, we would have more expendable income...I'm sure there would be cheats/ tax avaders out there who would take advantage of the system, but no more than we have today. I dont think it will work to completely drop income tax altogether, although I would love it personally....sales tax would have to be increase so much it would greatly affect prices. I think if we set a certain income tax on individuals, instead of this odd tiered setup, the sales tax could be increased to make of for it based on people making more money would theoretically buy more things. And if they dont, hey, good job for saving wisely.
  4. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday VIP Member

    Geez... I would be afraid of what abolishing the income tax would do to the sales tax.
  5. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member

    Well, for one thing, in the U.S. there is currently no national sales tax. Your current sales tax is either a) imposed by your state, or b) an excise tax imposed by the federal government on specific products (cigarettes, alcohol, gas). So the sales tax would be on top of all the other taxes you currently pay on what you buy -- not an addition to it (i.e. you currently pay 10 and it would go to 30), but a separate tax altogether.
  6. 2003vstrom

    2003vstrom Well-Known Member

    you have to remember that us hard working people that have jobs, have to support all the welfare people, I can never see a flat tax ever used, our worthless government wants to get deeper into our pockets. I heard a while back the government was think about installing a federal tax on purchased goods on top of all of the taxes we pay now. :(
  7. TheBeardedMann

    TheBeardedMann Well-Known Member

    It's the VAT, Value Added Tax.
    Just because someone has provided a good or service that people use more often than the competitor does not mean they should be taxed more. Higher tax rates for higher incomes is not fair.
  8. Zenze

    Zenze Well-Known Member

    Yes I defiantly this is an interesting idea that has a lot of potential. From an idealogical perspective I'm in favor of such a system. However I would like to see some research or studies into how much money this this would pull in or what the rates would have to be in order to match what we do now. I don't know if any has been done.

    Even if you are going to go with a income tax that gets larger the more money you make, having a bracket system makes no sense on any level. Its small(ish) but this is something that could be done today. Why not use a continuous function so that your rate would scale with your income continuously, instead of doing it in discrete steps?

    It makes no sense that if you make $8025 you get taxed 10% leaving you with $7222. However if you make $8026 you get taxed 15% leaving you with $6822. WTF is that!?!?! Using a continuous function would fix this.... or even a piecewise function... so many better ways...
  9. brab

    brab Guest

    Zenze
    What you describe is a piecewise function!

    Somehow reality has to hit the people in this country in the face. I may be a liberal, but one thing I know is the federal government cannot continue the rate of spending that we see now. Our politicians need to be locked behind closed doors and not allowed out until they decide how to cut the entitlements that have been written into law. That will require cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare and cuts in Defense spending.

    The baby boomers are retiring and the number of people that will be working to support the number retired is decreasing every year. Social Security and Medicare cost increases are directly proportional to the number of retirees. (Did I hear pull the plug anyone?)

    Our medical system is set up to extend the life of anyone who nears death with heroic means costing an extreme amount for terminal cases, people which are going to die from the disease anyway and whose life will be extended only a little.

    Wars which we fight may not all be necessary. I would argue that the war in Iraq was not but that is neither here nor there. We must be much more selective about the wars we find ourselves in.

    Why are we still in Europe? Is it not about time those people start taking care of themselves. They, for too long now, are able to spend money on other things that they would be spending on defense. If they want our troops there, let them start paying their salaries.

    This tretise is not off topic for how can we ever get our house in order without addressing these issues.
  10. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    I would rather continue paying welfare benefits than to keep flying these congressmen and their families (not just their husband and children, but almost having a family reunion in Austrailia) all over the world. It was funny, the media was all set to pounce on Nancy Pelosi about it and guess what? She is perfectly within her rights to fly people all over the world even though she can afford her own airline. It totally took the wind out of the sails of all those corruption articles they were going to run.

    Maybe the sales tax wouldn't work on her, she never pays for anything and makes us buy her stuff.
  11. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    I have an idea. The government could stop spending trillions of dollars and not have a need for collecting so many taxes. But, now that things have spiraled out of control and the entire world economy is at the tipping point (actually past it now), they are just going to keep creating/increasing more taxes out of thin air to try to make up for it, when in reality that will drive the depression even deeper.
  12. hood420

    hood420 Well-Known Member

    Most people who propose to drop the income tax also support severely cutting the size of the Federal government. I think it could be a good idea, but a great deal of restructuring would have to take place. See the Libertarian Party's platform: Platform | Libertarian Party and their views on taxes: http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

    Also see the history of US Income taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_income_tax_(legal_history)

    Federal income taxes didn't become the norm in this country until the 16th amendment was passed in 1913, previous federal income taxes were temporary and generally affected few people. So we've definitely made it without them in the past.
  13. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    Let's abolish the federal government and do away with all federal programs. That way. we can put the entire burden on the states. And then, when the states raise their taxes to cover the costs, why, we can do away with the states. And then the cities, towns and villages, too!
  14. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    lol! loL! no. :rolleyes:

    Following the Constitution is the way out of the abyss. There's a reason the founding fathers setup a limited government.
  15. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member


    The founding fathers never thought the constitution was written in concrete or that it was "a perfect document." They provided ways to amend it and they knew that the far more complex society of the future would require an expanded government.
  16. TheBeardedMann

    TheBeardedMann Well-Known Member

    That's why they gave powers to the states.
  17. v8dreaming

    v8dreaming Well-Known Member

    If we went to a national sales tax, that would mean EVERYBODY pays. I like this idea. Those that are here illegally would have to pay... less burden on the people that are here legally. Those that visit from other countries would also have to pay. Again, less burden on the rest of us. I don't think that it would have to be an ungodly amount. That way, the only ones having to pay an income tax would be the companies that collect them from us. The IRS would be cut back as there wouldn't be as many people needed. That's kind of a downside in a way though... more unemployed people. But it would save some on government spending... theoretically.

    Off topic: Our politicians should not be allowed to give themselves pay raises and there should be term limits to get rid of career politicians. We need to stop giving them a free ride.
  18. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    People should not be allowed to debate on tax systems until they can prove they understand the current system.

    ( you don't get tax 15% on $8026... you get taxed 10% on $8025 and 15% on $1 )
  19. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    "Expanded government?" LOL, seriously, have you read the Constitution? Doubt it. Have you read the Federalist papers? Doubt it. Have you read the founding father's personal writings? Doubt it.

    The Constitution lays out a LIMITED government and intends to keep it that way. The amendment process is for expanding FREEDOMS, not expanding tyrannical government.

    If I were you, I'd go back to school and do a little learning.. because you literally have no idea what you're talking about. ahahaha, pathetic.
  20. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    The amendments cover quite a bit more than expanding freedoms. As I stated, the founding fathers anticipated (as best they could) a nation whose needs would change in the future, and they provided a document that had the flexibility to be interpreted and to change.

    I suggest you cool it with the personal insults.
  21. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    The document is resolute.. not a living/breathing document open to interpretation. The only one allowed to "interpret" is the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, but they don't interpret the Constitution in any way they see fit.. they interpret law which is based on the Constitution. Throughout history however, we've seen this breached with "legislating from the bench" cases. In order to even think about changing anything, it has to go through the 2/3 process by both houses of congress and >2/3 of the states. The purpose of the document is to limit the size of federal government.. literally that is the entire purpose of it. It goes step by step, department by department, laying out the powers granted to the federal government. Everything else is determined by the state and local governments. This is so people can get away from a state or local government that does something that limits them in a way they do not see fit. I am not throwing out personal insults, I merely recommended you educate yourself on the issue since you're trying to make an invalid point which opposes the reason the Constitution was drafted.
  22. whiskeyguy

    whiskeyguy Well-Known Member

    I've scanned all the replies and I'm gonna jump in here. Sorry if I am repeating something. First, a couple fun facts. The Federal Income tax only goes to paying interest on the national debt. Not one dime goes to future services, but simply pays the minimum, interest only payments on "services" rendered. Also, around 50% of Americans pay 100% of the federal income tax... meaning the other half have a free ride. Also there is an argument that the Federal Income Tax was never properly ratified into the Constitution, meaning we do not legally have to pay it.

    I'm a Constitutionalists I suppose... but if I had to pick a party it would probably be a Libertarian. I do believe we need federal taxation, but the federal government should ONLY be in charge with powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Everything else should be left up to the states. Then the citizens of the states could vote on services they want, and taxes to support them. California (where I live) would probably have pretty high taxes, while Texas would not.

    For federal taxes, I am for MASSIVE spending cuts. I actually think the feds should implement a hiring freeze for at least five years, applied to all areas of the government except the military in war time. If a certain agency needs more employees, they have to cross train from another related agency that has too many.

    I'm also in fave of the flat tax, and only a flat tax. There is no reason all Americans shouldn't pay the same percentage. In fact, poorer Americans benefit much more from civil services than richer Americans. I think the number needed now to replace the federal income tax completely is 17%, but with less funding it could be lower.
  23. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    I do think property tax is B.S.

    And income tax only really comes from the middle class, so eff that too. I say make shit more expensive.
  24. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    People that say that have obviously not read the constitution.

    You prove my point.

    Can you point out where in the constitution the Supremem Court "interprets" the constitution?
  25. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    Read the Federalist Papers and the founding father's journals.

    "You prove my point."

Share This Page