You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Arguments Against Flat or ConsumptionTax?
- Thread starter ktmexc20
- Start date
Quote from gnome:
It's been estimated that there is $400 BILLION in non-paid income tax by those who don't file or otherwise evade income tax. If there were a Federal Consumption Tax, those folks would pay something whenever they bought goods and services.... an example of "broadening the tax base".
I agree that could work, especially get illegals and paid in cash folks to pay their taxes, but there is another problem. People could just go on to ebay to buy everything and not get taxed unless they live in the state the seller does business. Now that's an extreme example, but you get the point.
Quote from smilingsynic:
Quote from gnome:
What about charities? Some people give out of the goodness of their hearts, but some also give because they want a tax break. If that incentive were removed, charities would feel it for sure.
Holy Crap professor!
Follow the bouncing ball. No tax on income and no tax when you give it away means no tax whatsoever on charity giving.
How much of a tax break can you ask for?
Quote from smilingsynic:
Quote from gnome:
It's been estimated that there is $400 BILLION in non-paid income tax by those who don't file or otherwise evade income tax. If there were a Federal Consumption Tax, those folks would pay something whenever they bought goods and services.... an example of "broadening the tax base". [/QUOTE
They would even more likely try to evade a consumption tax because of what they would perceive to be sticker shock....
The point is... they would not be able to avoid the consumption tax if they bought in any place other than a barter exchange... and most things are not easily bartered.
Excellent excellent commentary....
The real question here is how necessary is it to change the tax system and what difference would it make...
The add on consumption tax could be either seen or unseen...Today the consumption tax is unseen...
However the point made is so true...when the price difference is obvious at the point of sell...it affects the buying psychology...
And one never knows the markup of most items that they buy such as cars etc....they just shop around...
However a price at the point of sale even with a consumption tax could just have a price....and there would be no further description....
In a way this insults the intelligence of the public...however this is no different than the public willing to buy a no commission bond with a markup of $25...or actually buy the bond with no markup and a $1 commission....The public will buy the no commission bond.....every time...
The point about what items are consumption items and what items are not consumption items is a good point....
And furthermore when any individual looks at a country´s tax system ...and were to look at the US and see a flat 10% ....and look at Europe and see a progressive 25 to 55%....where do you think they will want their business.....???? Most other governments have tax structures which are far less attractive than a flat 10%...
What I am saying is that although the flat tax is smaller in appearance...it is far larger in actual revenues and will dwarf todays revenues...particularly on a 10 year time frame...
From both an implementation ...psychological...and competitive standpoint the flat tax wins.....and the poor win because the revenues are higher not lower that could be allocated to the disadvantaged....
The US could become the tax haven stronghold of the world....
I think that Paulson should take the 10% flat tax trade.....
The real question here is how necessary is it to change the tax system and what difference would it make...
The add on consumption tax could be either seen or unseen...Today the consumption tax is unseen...
However the point made is so true...when the price difference is obvious at the point of sell...it affects the buying psychology...
And one never knows the markup of most items that they buy such as cars etc....they just shop around...
However a price at the point of sale even with a consumption tax could just have a price....and there would be no further description....
In a way this insults the intelligence of the public...however this is no different than the public willing to buy a no commission bond with a markup of $25...or actually buy the bond with no markup and a $1 commission....The public will buy the no commission bond.....every time...
The point about what items are consumption items and what items are not consumption items is a good point....
And furthermore when any individual looks at a country´s tax system ...and were to look at the US and see a flat 10% ....and look at Europe and see a progressive 25 to 55%....where do you think they will want their business.....???? Most other governments have tax structures which are far less attractive than a flat 10%...
What I am saying is that although the flat tax is smaller in appearance...it is far larger in actual revenues and will dwarf todays revenues...particularly on a 10 year time frame...
From both an implementation ...psychological...and competitive standpoint the flat tax wins.....and the poor win because the revenues are higher not lower that could be allocated to the disadvantaged....
The US could become the tax haven stronghold of the world....
I think that Paulson should take the 10% flat tax trade.....
Quote from hans37:
Holy Crap professor!
Follow the bouncing ball. No tax on income and no tax when you give it away means no tax whatsoever on charity giving.
How much of a tax break can you ask for?
Come on Hans... wake up. You voice such strong opinions for someone who apparently understands little.
When money is give to a charity, it's not like the giver "got away with something". The giver is out $1.00, but saves $.30 in taxes.... sheesh!
Quote from smilingsynic:
Quote from gnome:
And no one has discussed stocks, real estate, and education. Would those be taxed at 20% or more? If not, why not?
If one were to make an exception for "investments," then what about collectibles (art, baseball cards, etc.)?
Is it too much to ask of you to read the details of the fair tax plan ?
I provided links that answer those questions earlier to jayford.
Quote from gnome:
Come on Hans... wake up. You voice such strong opinions for someone who apparently understands little.
When money is give to a charity, it's not like the giver "got away with something". The giver is out $1.00, but saves $.30 in taxes.... sheesh!
If one is inclined to give money to a charity in the first place.
Then the loss of the governmental carrot of an income tax break will be more than offset by an increased take-home pay.
Wait a minute... money is said to be the root of all evil [terribly mistranslated and as usual, not understood but hey...], so the consumption tax will drive people to the barter system, and we won't need money!! Voila, evil wiped out in one swell foop!! One more great reason to have a consumption tax.