Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49
  1. #2  
    Not on a bet! The only group that will really benefit from a national sales tax are the wealthy, who spend but a tiny part of their income. Low and middle income people, who have little choice but to spend all (or most) of what they earn, will be the true losers.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  2. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Low and middle income people, who have little choice but to spend all (or most) of what they earn, will be the true losers.
    Thats why I let my parents pay for most of my purchases
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  3. #4  
    nope, I think that tuberculosis should come tax free
    La Vie En Diaspora: Enfin, une émission qui raconte votre vie aux Etats-Unis

    Treo 600 in December '03, Treo 650 in February '05, HTC TyTN Pro in August '06, and back to Treo 750 in January '07, find me at MyTreo.net

    About me: story of the 100thMonkey
  4. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Not on a bet! The only group that will really benefit from a national sales tax are the wealthy, who spend but a tiny part of their income. Low and middle income people, who have little choice but to spend all (or most) of what they earn, will be the true losers.

    Yes, but isn't most of thier income spent on housing? While a very, very small portion of it is spent on consumer goods!

    I am niether for or against this proposal, as I don't know enough about it. However it would seem to even out the playing field a little.
  5. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Yes, but isn't most of thier income spent on housing? While a very, very small portion of it is spent on consumer goods!
    You beat me to it, sxtg. Low and middle income families spend a larger percentage of their net income on housing and utilities, which would not be taxable by a national sales tax, and therefore would not be the true losers. The upper class, with more disposable income and therefore the ability to make more and larger discretionary purchases, would be taxed more heavily than low or middle income families who do not make as many purchases.

    The true losers would be low and middle income families who live outside their means because they spend too much on junk they don't need.
  6. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Not on a bet! The only group that will really benefit from a national sales tax are the wealthy, who spend but a tiny part of their income. Low and middle income people, who have little choice but to spend all (or most) of what they earn, will be the true losers.
    Consumption and/or flat taxes are the fairest.

    The rich will always get richer. The poor will always get poorer. The only hope for the poor to change their destiny is to learn to become the rich. (NOTE: "Rich" is not measured in terms of how much you have, but in trms of what you do with what you have).

    Low and Middle income people definitely have a choice in how they utilize their resources. And, until they exercise better chlices, they will always feel like they have no choice.

    Bottom line: the rich will find ways to benefit from what ever tax scheme is introduced. And, unfortunately, the poor will discover ways to further their poverty. So, we should establish a level playing field in terms of taxes. AND, we should teach the poor the rules of the financial game.
  7. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Not on a bet! The only group that will really benefit from a national sales tax are the wealthy, who spend but a tiny part of their income. Low and middle income people, who have little choice but to spend all (or most) of what they earn, will be the true losers.
    Also, a "tiny part" of a large quantity would mean significant taxable expenditure.

    Example: If a person with $1,000,000 spends only 1% of their cash, that is $10,000 being spent. Even when those with accumulated wealth spend little, they spend more then most. And, so by their habit, they will (dare I say continue to) bear the larger burden of the tax.
  8. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    The true losers would be low and middle income families who live outside their means because they spend too much on junk they don't need.
    Why is it that it seems like more poor people smoke
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Consumption and/or flat taxes are the fairest.
    You are absolutely correct --
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  10. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Why is it that it seems like more poor people smoke

    Assuming that statement is even correct, I would say more stress... maybe?

    I smoke and according to Uncle Sam, I am not among the poor.
  11. #12  
    Consumption taxes provide incentives to save more and since they do not penalize additional work (as does a progressive income tax) they also provide invcentives to work harder. Most economistrs therefore prefer them on efficiency grounds.
    Laissez Faire
  12. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I smoke and according to Uncle Sam, I am not among the poor.
    Maybe its just that you make poor choices
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Maybe its just that you make poor choices

    Yes thats hard to argue
  14. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Also, a "tiny part" of a large quantity would mean significant taxable expenditure.

    Example: If a person with $1,000,000 spends only 1% of their cash, that is $10,000 being spent. Even when those with accumulated wealth spend little, they spend more then most. And, so by their habit, they will (dare I say continue to) bear the larger burden of the tax.

    So let me get this straight. The wealthy supporters of the Republican party are supporting a national consumption tax because it will INCREASE the amount of taxes they pay? Get real!

    Yes, the wealthy will still pay more taxes than the poor. But as a percentage of all taxes raised, the wealthy pay far less now than they did 4 years ago. And under a consumption based tax, their share will decline even further.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  15. #16  
    The point of a consumption tax is that all parties rich and poor will not be forced to pay taxes based on thier efforts. They will electively (loose term) pay based on thier purchases.

    Seems fair to me.
  16. #17  
    flat taxes will shift the tax burden dramatically from the rich to the poor. If you want that, then you want flat taxes. At least that is how I see it.
  17. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    flat taxes will shift the tax burden dramatically from the rich to the poor. If you want that, then you want flat taxes. At least that is how I see it.

    We keep hearing that, but have yet to hear how!
  18. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    So let me get this straight. The wealthy supporters of the Republican party are supporting a national consumption tax because it will INCREASE the amount of taxes they pay? Get real!
    No. wealthy people (regardless of their ideology) are not wealthy because they look for ways to increase their expenses. They are wealthy because the find ways to increase their revenue while lowering or at least steadying their expenses.
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Yes, the wealthy will still pay more taxes than the poor. But as a percentage of all taxes raised, the wealthy pay far less now than they did 4 years ago. And under a consumption based tax, their share will decline even further.
    Why is the percentage of concern?
  19. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    No. wealthy people (regardless of their ideology) are not wealthy because they look for ways to increase their expenses. They are wealthy because the find ways to increase their revenue while lowering or at least steadying their expenses.

    Why is the percentage of concern?

    Especially lowering their expenses. Hence the explosion in tax shelters of questionable legality.

    Why? OK, let's say it takes X dollars to fund governent programs. Call it 1 Trillion, only because that's a nice round number. Now say that in the year 2000 the top quintile payed 22% of that 1 Trillion. That left 78%, or 780 billion dollars, to be paid by the rest. Now say that a consumption tax, replacing taxes on income, interest, dividends and capital gains, reduces the share the rich pay to 18%. That means the remaining 80% now pay 820 billion dollars in taxes. In very simple terms: if the wealthy pay less, the rest of us pay more.

    This is overly simplified of course, because it ignores deficits (already at all time highs during the Bush years, and likely to grow even larger), and potential budget cuts. But the Republican congress doesn't seem any more interested in cutting the overal budget any more than democrats did, nor does Bush seem even a little bit concerned with doing so. So don't expect overall tax receipts to drop very much, for very long. Eventually the deficit has to be payed for, one way or another.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions