Last Updated:

  1. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    Neither one of those are the constitution.

    It's funny that a strict constitutionalist immediately wants to use items outside of the constitution to interpret the constitution.

    The Federalist papers and journals were of course opinion statements and since the founding father's were as diverse as we are today you can not use their writings to assume a consensus on a policy position.

    The consensuses the founding fathers reached ended up in the constitution or the bill of rights.

  2. hakr100

    hakr100 Well-Known Member

    And your well-thought-out alternative is...
  3. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    The founding fathers explain the positions and why they chose them and came to the same conclusion for the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not explain why the positions and laws on government were precisely chosen. And since the document is resolute, because something is not in it, that doesn't mean it is automatically a power of government.
  4. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    People are forgetting to key things here, rich people, who buy a lot of stuff, expensive stuff, would finally have to pay full taxes. No tax breaks. Second, think of all the illegals & legals who don't pay income tax, they would have to pay a national sales tax. I'm all for it.

    Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
  5. Zenze

    Zenze Well-Known Member

    Good point.

    Yea the more I think about it the more I like it. I would really like to see some politicians seriously talk about this.
  6. foreWard

    foreWard Well-Known Member

    is it me, or are there people from both sides "of the aisle" agreeing on things......history in the making! lol
  7. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    We don't have voters to appease or lobbyists to pay back, so it is easier for nobodies like us to come to terms.

    I think that most of us here are just trying to get on with our lives, we don't want to control anyone else's and we're just trying to make out little corners of the world better. It's when our corners border someone else's that the struggle comes from.

    I think that everyone in here truly wants to make things better. We have differing ideas about how to do that, but if we were the types to try to line our pockets we certainly wouldn't be exchanging ideas for free.
    Zenze likes this.
  8. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    That'll be $10 for using my IP
  9. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    Damn you! Damn yooooooooooooooooouuu!

    Wait, I downloaded your stuff off of Pirate Bay, just try and catch me!
  10. mpw

    mpw Well-Known Member

    Your 2nd point is valid, the evasion of such a tax would be more difficult than the evasion of Income Tax, in many instances.

    Your 1st point however is a little more shaky.

    Bearing in mind that I'm not 100% familiar with the US tax system, but viewing this from a more general perspective.

    It's true what you say that 'rich' people who buy a lot of expensive stuff would pay more in Sales Tax if ST were increased, than they would if ST was not increased, but that does not mean that they would pay more in ST than they do currently in IT necessarily.

    If a person earns $1m pa and pays 50% in IT they pay $500k; if the minimum cost of living is $20k, then that leaves him with $480k each year. Suppose he lives a life of luxury and spends $250k a year on 'luxuries', saving the remaining $250k.

    Now lets take the same person a year later, after IT is done away with to be replaced with ST.

    Income is still $1m, and his lifestyle doesn't change; to achieve the same tax revenue the ST would need to be 186%, leaving him with $330k to save. He's better off by $80k pa.

    Now take a lower income, say $40k pa, IT @ 50% leaves them with $0 savings and no luxuries. ST @ 186% leaves them short by $17k pa

    The only way the argument to abolish IT in favour of ST is to have variable rates of ST, but for every exemption, there has to be an increase at the top end, meaning the ST on luxury item would likely exceed 200%; as soon as a luxury item like a $500 smartphone starts to cost $1,500, a black market of buying via will mean you have even more people evading taxes than at present.

    I think the best solution is a package of taxes, all kept a low as possible, on income, purchases and fees for registration and licenses where appropriate.

    Whatever system, it needs to be simple, fair and practical.
  11. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    Yeah our IT system is massively flawed. Here's where I think my idea would work though. It is commonly known the wealthy are rich enough to hire tax lawyers, who then tie up their money in investments, and do what I call "magic on paper", so the amount they are taxed on is significantly less. To get a more fair accurate i'd need a team of people running numbers for months if not years. Another flaw in our IT system, and this goes back to immigrants, all immigrants, is if they open a business, they don't have to pay taxes on that business for ten years. This is nowhere near fair IMO, and should be abolished immediately. The biggest problem with this, is you have abdul from pakistan who opens up a quickie mart, runs it for ten years, then passes ownership to his brother or cousin mohammed, who in turn doesn't pay taxes for another ten years. And this cycle goes on and on until they run out of family members.(which is never, basically)

    Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
  12. mpw

    mpw Well-Known Member

    The idea of not taxing a new business, for 10years, is just bizarre! I was not aware of this practice.

    Obviously that in itself is clearly an area that is in desperate need of addressing, and if they can simply close, and have friends or family re-open to benefit for another decade that's even more incompetent of your tax authority and legislature to allow.

    I can understand the motivation that probably prompted such a law, trying to help new businesses, but it sounds like such a strange implementation; I've experienced a similar system where a new businesses losses in it's first year of trading, can be claimed back against taxes on the profits in years 2&3; this encourages paper losses in year 1, but I don't think that's as harmful as 10years free trading!

    I do think that rather than do away with IT to stop such circumvention, it makes more sense to simply close(or reduce) such loopholes; imagine what the IT would be on those businesses.

    As for the wealthy avoiding taxation through legal investments and 'magic', again, rather than throw away the system, just tighten it up with better regulation.
  13. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    As a side note, the 10yr new business thing, only applies to legal immigrants. Why they would have more opportunity than a us citizen to open a business is beyond me.

    Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
  14. brab

    brab Guest

    The idea of doing away with income tax and having a national sales tax does have merit. You set a flat rate and apply it to everything you buy, everything, that means, cars, houses, food, cigarettes, etc.

    It would be a fairer tax. If you were a very rich person you would pay more tax by virtue of the fact that you spent more. Very poor people could get tax subsidies. Similarly, students as well. Would have to be a prohibition on buying something in another country and bringing it hear. Probably would have to pay higher customs charges on such importations.

    Probably not a bad idea though. Could be worked out. Would be able to abolish the IRS, yeah everyone says.
  15. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    Yeah imagine the amount of money saved if the IRS was done away with or downsized considerably. Hundreds of millions per year I bet. But I think taxes should be naturally higher on cigs/alchohol, as they are not needed for survival.

    Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
  16. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    Same for cell phones and cars and stuff. Tax that at like 80% and teach those bastards a lesson for having luxuries. Oh wait.
  17. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    Bitter much? :rolleyes: don't want to pay extra for your daily 40 or box o' cheap wine I guess huh?
  18. mpw

    mpw Well-Known Member

    The trouble with a flat rate tax is that you have to set the tax rate very high (as proven above) to collect the same amount of tax, and you rely on the rich spending on luxuries; I know a man who earns approx. $1m pa, but his outgoings are probably less than $40k, to collect the same in Sales Tax from him as you would in Income Tax, the Sales Tax would need to be around 400%: Does 400% tax sound like a good idea?

    Yes you could do away with IRS, and employ all those people to administer a Sales Tax, and tax refund/credit system.

    The benefit then is nobody's income is being pawed over by the State, only their outgoings... except the poor who want to claim the refunds.

    80%? see above.
  19. wiretap

    wiretap Well-Known Member

    Just a bit of sarcasm for you tyrannical government loving types. ;)
  20. 3devious

    3devious Well-Known Member

    Yeah... Some of the richest people are some of the cheapest bastards out there, like that senator we have that has more money than god but won't pay a single dime for her personal travel. She makes the goverment fly her and her family around and pay their in-flight entertainment tabs.

    It's no secret that these people take up more resources than the normal person. They should pay into the system to balance that, but their taxes do go towards services that they will never use. There should be a good way to balance these things, too. We haven't found it yet. We probably need economists instead of politicians working on it, though.
  21. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    That's why you completely cut "perks" like that out.
  22. mpw

    mpw Well-Known Member

    I think you're making a very different argument here than I was.

    The person I was talking about isn't a 'cheap bastard' in the same way you describe the Senator, he simply has very low outgoings by virtue of his prudent lifestyle.

    The argument you seem to making with regards to the Senator, is one of how taxes already collected are being mismanaged, not how to best collect them.

    Do you mean you want an economist to make the call on how much to spend on treating sick old people? What IS the economic value of an elderly person who has no income other than state benefits? I'm guessing there's a saving to be had there... mentally disabled person; economic benefit to society?
  23. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    Or maybe not let the government decide how much to treat anyone?
  24. mpw

    mpw Well-Known Member

    What do you mean, completely remove government from healthcare?

    Admittedly that would save a lot in taxes, but how many people just wouldn't be able to afford any treatment? Say you can't afford health insurance, and you hit by an uninsured driver; who pays for the treatment you received? or would you not receive treatment until payment had been made/assured by somebody?

    A free at the point of use, State funded healthcare safety-net, is, I think, fundamental to a civilized society.
  25. Zenze

    Zenze Well-Known Member

    Agreed, but with the addition that what you save in taxes you will more than pay for to insurance companies.

    Insurance companies make huge profits and don't really provide anything useful. If we just got rid of the health insurance companies and had this taken care of with an organization that was not out for profit it seems there would be a lot of savings.

Share This Page