TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

tbrown wrote:I want a sales tax that equally taxes every dollar someone chooses to spend.

Equality and choice. Why are they anathema to the left wing?

What do you not understand about the fact that a sales tax end up taxing a larger percent of lower income earners wages than it does the rich so you're ok with a tax increase on the poor but not the rich.

I know math and English are hard for some people but 8% of $175 is the same no matter who pays it.

Math doesn't discriminate.
It's the same for Rich or Poor.
It's the same for Black or White.
It's the same for Male or Female.
It's the same for Young or Old.
It's the same for Christian or Muslim.

Why do the socialists hate equal treatment in the law for everyone?





If you were wondering, it's $14.

You seem to need a math lesson, I said overall higher rate, it I make 24k in a year and spend most of it I'm taxed 8% on what I spend, now if someone was to make 124k and spend 50k yes all 50K is taxed at 8% but what about the other 74k that goes untaxed, so overall I pay a higher rate than someone making more money than me. Do not insult my intelligence.

C-dub wrote:What I fail to understand is why the OWS bunch and most if not all liberals scream that the rich (1%) should pay their fair share when many of the 99% don't pay ANY share.

I knew that would come up and it is an untrue rumor pushed by the RWM every year, yes 51% of income earners do not pay any income tax but they pay takes in other places. So no it is no "no share".

The Mad Moderate wrote:

tbrown wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

tbrown wrote:I want a sales tax that equally taxes every dollar someone chooses to spend.

Equality and choice. Why are they anathema to the left wing?

What do you not understand about the fact that a sales tax end up taxing a larger percent of lower income earners wages than it does the rich so you're ok with a tax increase on the poor but not the rich.

I know math and English are hard for some people but 8% of $175 is the same no matter who pays it.

Math doesn't discriminate.
It's the same for Rich or Poor.
It's the same for Black or White.
It's the same for Male or Female.
It's the same for Young or Old.
It's the same for Christian or Muslim.

Why do the socialists hate equal treatment in the law for everyone?





If you were wondering, it's $14.

You seem to need a math lesson, I said overall higher rate, it I make 24k in a year and spend most of it I'm taxed 8% on what I spend, now if someone was to make 124k and spend 50k yes all 50K is taxed at 8% but what about the other 74k that goes untaxed, so overall I pay a higher rate than someone making more money than me. Do not insult my intelligence.

With the prebate that is being proposed by the fairtax.org folks, the person making 24K would pay less tax as a percentage. The taxes that would be paid on essentials would be covered through the monthly prebate. So in essence, somone who only makes enough to cover essentials would be paying a net of zero. As a matter of fact, someone living on ramen noodles would actually have a negative tax burden.

Lower income earners also tend to buy more used items and less new items, used items would not be taxed, therefore low income earners also get a break there.

The only group of low income earners that would see a higher percentage than middle and upper income earners would be illegal immigrants since they would not receive the prebate. I'm certainly ok with removing some of the economic incentive from being an "undocumented worker".

Lower income earners also tend to buy more used items and less new items, used items would not be taxed, therefore low income earners also get a break there

1) dunno if the premise is true or not "Lower income earners also tend to buy more used items and less new items"
Most "poor" I know tend to buy new items so they'll not have to pay for multiple repairs soon, and that saves money.

I imagine lower income earners prefer to buy new durable goods" but will be restricted by this to buying used items because of this new "penalty" I disagree that there is anything "fair" about increasing taxes on poor while decreasing taxes for the rich. Sounds like "common sense gun law" type of word choosing of using the opposite label of what something is to promote it.

2) New "Penalties" called getting a break? Poor forced to buy hand-me-downs when they'd prefer a new car/dishwasher/appliance but now must get a used one they'll pay more for in repairs sooner and pay more for utilities/gas than if they bought new?

Also, which Poor person would NOT rather have a "new" LED TV using 30 watts of electricity than a "used" TV using 200 watts, or a new car getting 40 mpg than a used car needing repairs and getting 13 mpg? Yeah, penalize them even more in these ways with unintended consequences creating more spending by the poor as a % of income than it would on the higher income group.

Sales taxes are generally regressive. Flat % of tax on income is "fair"
Taxing spending leads to hoarding, such that persons with income brackets like Bill Gates would hoard rather than spend. And, the rich get richer, and the poor pay more % of their income on "luxuries" like an air conditioner filter than Bill does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Math itself doesn't discriminate, but it does prove 9% of 13,000 year spent when one's income is 13,500 a year is a much greater tax burden/makes life harder on that guy than 9% of 13,000 a year spent by Bill Gates whose income billions each year. Rewarding the rich for hoarding isn't going to help the economy/create jobs etc when most of the money won't get spent here. Taxing re-investment to upgrade a businesses machinery etc, will discourage it. Perhaps businesses can buy less safe older equipment and avoid the sales tax, at the expense of worker safety.

1) dunno if the premise is true or not "Lower income earners also tend to buy more used items and less new items"

I imagine lower income earners prefer to buy new durable goods" but will be restricted by this to buying used items because of this new "penalty"

I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates and Oprah have never bumped into each other while buying clothes at a resale shop. Warren Buffet is probably not the target consumer for most used car lots. When I was poor (not rich now, but not poor either), I bought furniture at second hand furniture stores or from newspaper ads where people were selling their used furniture. This is true today without a "new penalty" for buying new.

Sales taxes are generally regressive. Flat % of tax on income is "fair"

Without the prebate, I might generally agree your statement about the sales tax. With the prebate, the only thing being taxed is disposable income. If only 2% of your total income is disposable (above that which is required to buy essentials) then you are only being taxed on that 2% if an when you spend it.

I don't disagree with the flat income tax. My only problem is that those who hide income now would still escape the flat tax. I want illegal immigrants and drug dealers to pay their share.

Taxing spending leads to hoarding, such that persons with income brackets like Bill Gates would hoard rather than spend.

I would be willing to wager that Bill Gates would not "hoard" money. It's highly doubtfull that his money is sitting in a vault somewhere earning him nothing. He would get a tax shelter from investing his money. You do know that increasing investing also promots economic growth right?

Math itself doesn't discriminate, but it does prove 9% of 13,000 year spent when one's income is 13,500 a year is a much greater tax burden/makes life harder on that guy than 9% of 13,000 a year spent by Bill Gates whose income billions each year

I replied before you edited to add this. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the prebate that would come with the fairtax.

It's explained here: http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't disagree with the flat income tax. My only problem is that those who hide income now would still escape the flat tax. I want illegal immigrants and drug dealers to pay their share.

No matter what tax system you set up, you won't always get
1) those paid under the table" on Income tax

but you also won't get

2) those buying stolen/smuggled goods on a sales tax.

So the argument could be your example illegals and drug dealers are likely to escape a sales tax on the black market goods they buy, whereas employers would have to withhold and they'd pay tax on their paid income. Since more illegals are employed than buy/sell illegal items more would pay an income tax (employer holds it) than a sales tax when they report the illegal sale of the stolen/black market/smuggled "new" item, which of course, they won't report.

The "fair" tax encourages buying black market and stolen goods if you want "new" items ... quite a goal.
Tax on spending will increase smuggling, as buying off the Internet is done by many to avoid sales taxes now, we'll see more smuggling to avoid sales taxes.

increasing investing also promotes economic growth

Another consequence:
As sales of "new items" decreases, businesses will suffer, have less income to reinvest, and less income to hire employees to sell to the fewer people buying "new" so they'll need to manufacture less and lay offs will be eminent, putting less $ in circulation so even fewer buy "new"... from there it just repeats the layoff-higher unemployment/fewer buying new/manufacture less/sell less "new" cycle in a downhill spiral.

So, by taxing "new" items sold, crimes will increase, unemployment will increase, business revenue will decrease, business reinvestment will decrease, overall tax revenues will decrease as everyone buys more smuggled "new" goods and sales through legal channels decrease and salesmen/distribution centers close and they'll not have incomes so they buy less and so factories close ... but Mexico will have an incentive to smuggle more items in; and those who would rather spend (New LED TV) 33 watts of electricity than (used TV) 200 watts of electricity on a monthly bill so they can buy more food with the money saved ... would be tempted to buy those untaxed "new" goods. Of course the rich don't care if they do spend 200 or 600 watts per hour on electricity or get 5 gallons per mile as they can afford it, but they'll be buying the new energy saving models, while poor are forced to buy things which cost more in the long run with energy costs and maintenance of their "used-energy wasting" purchases, or ... they can buy black market "new" items and save energy/maintenance costs and eat better foods with the money saved-similar to how many buy over the Internet now..

canvasbck wrote:I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates and Oprah have never bumped into each other while buying clothes at a resale shop. Warren Buffet is probably not the target consumer for most used car lots. When I was poor (not rich now, but not poor either), I bought furniture at second hand furniture stores or from newspaper ads where people were selling their used furniture. This is true today without a "new penalty" for buying new.

From what I understand, Warren Buffet lives very modestly.

canvasbck wrote:I don't disagree with the flat income tax. My only problem is that those who hide income now would still escape the flat tax. I want illegal immigrants and drug dealers to pay their share.

And I want criminals to stop being criminals. Do you know of any law that works perfectly as intended, laws that even the worst of criminals obey? Oh, and black markets.

Thomas wrote:If you want to look at it that way. As long as you believe in "overall rates", you will always be correct. As long as I believe in treating everyone equally, I will always be correct. There's no sense in arguing numbers. For any real headway to be made, the discussion must boil down to the basics.

I'm kinda sad that you (Mad Moderate) didn't respond to this. You still seem to be going on about "overall rates".

Thomas wrote:

If you want to look at it that way. As long as you believe in "overall rates", you will always be correct. As long as I believe in treating everyone equally, I will always be correct. There's no sense in arguing numbers. For any real headway to be made, the discussion must boil down to the basics.

I'm kinda sad that you (Mad Moderate) didn't respond to this. You still seem to be going on about "overall rates".

Because the overall rates argument distracts people from the truth. A flat percentage on ALL goods and services is equitable. Everyone pays an equal rate. You can"t get more fair than that, despite the red herrings tossed up by socialists and others who want preferential treatment in the tax code.

It's true that some people may pay more if taxes are fair (not to be confused with the Fair Tax which has intentional inequities built in by design) because they are not currently paying their fair share.

Isn't it time everyone pulls their weight?

RPB wrote:So, by taxing "new" items sold, crimes will increase, unemployment will increase, business revenue will decrease, business reinvestment will decrease, overall tax revenues will decrease as everyone buys more smuggled "new" goods and sales through legal channels decrease and salesmen/distribution centers close and they'll not have incomes so they buy less and so

That's an interesting story but I think it's fiction. None of that has happened in Texas. Definitely not more than states that have an income tax. Believe what you want but Texas seems to be doing better economically than Illinois and California and other states with a state income tax.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

C-dub wrote:What I fail to understand is why the OWS bunch and most if not all liberals scream that the rich (1%) should pay their fair share when many of the 99% don't pay ANY share.

I knew that would come up and it is an untrue rumor pushed by the RWM every year, yes 51% of income earners do not pay any income tax but they pay takes in other places. So no it is no "no share".

Please tell me how much any of them pay in FEDERAL taxes. I am unaware of any federal taxes for any purchase.

Thinking ..... gasoline? Is that one?

As far as your math lesson goes, well it is enlightening. In your own example you pay the same rate, 8%. You may pay different amounts, but the interest rate is the same. If you spend $22k of your $24k you will you will have paid $1,760 in taxes, while if I spent $50k I will have paid $4,000 in taxes. The rest of my untaxed earnings is money I earned and have not spent, yet. Why do you want to take something I've worked hard for away from me? I worked hard and spent my own money to go to college so I could get my job. There will always have to be ditch diggers and folks to bag groceries in this world. Are those jobs worth $124k per year?

The only way you could possibly pay more than me in this example is if I spent less than you. How likely is that, really?

C-dub wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

C-dub wrote:What I fail to understand is why the OWS bunch and most if not all liberals scream that the rich (1%) should pay their fair share when many of the 99% don't pay ANY share.

I knew that would come up and it is an untrue rumor pushed by the RWM every year, yes 51% of income earners do not pay any income tax but they pay takes in other places. So no it is no "no share".

Please tell me how much any of them pay in FEDERAL taxes. I am unaware of any federal taxes for any purchase.

Thinking ..... gasoline? Is that one?

Q. What is Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET)?

A. Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) is a tax imposed by Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 4181) on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers.

Chapter 32 also imposes taxes on other commodities such as:
•Tires
•Gasoline
•Coal
•Vaccines
•Sport fishing equipment
•Bows and arrows

C-dub wrote:The only way you could possibly pay more than me in this example is if I spent less than you. How likely is that, really?

I can think of a few. He borrows too much and is in debt up to his eyeballs. He works a second job off the books and has income he spends but doesn't report to the IRS. He has income from criminal activity such as illegal gambling, drugs or prostitution, which likewise is not reported to the IRS and taxed. You live very frugally, perhaps because you're saving a down payment for a house, or so you can buy your next car with cash, or for retirement. You live very frugally, and donate generously to charities. The list goes on.

That's more than I was aware of. I thought the tax we paid on an automobile was a state tax and it was fixed at somewhere around 6-6.5%. It's been a while since I've bought a car.

C-dub wrote:That's more than I was aware of. I thought the tax we paid on an automobile was a state tax and it was fixed at somewhere around 6-6.5%. It's been a while since I've bought a car.

The sales tax on an automobile IS state tax (6.25%)...the tires are subject to federal excise tax, as are many of the components BEFORE assembly, but there is NO federal tax to the retail purchaser. All sales tax in Texas is state or municipal...the state tax is 6.25 % , but towns have the individual option of adding a city sales tax which the state refunds to the city on a monthly basis...in most Texas towns the sales tax rate is 8.25% with certain items such as automobiles (both new and used) being exempted from the 2% added city tax.

steveincowtown wrote:

old farmer wrote:

EXXON profits is over 30.5 billion dollars....................................................................................................

No offense old farmer, I am not happy with the State of The Union as well, but the quote above is one of my pet peeves. Exxon made 30.5 billion on Revenues of 383 Billion. This means as a business the made less than 8% net profit at the end of the day.

How many of you own a business, and how many of you would think you were "killing it" if you made 8% net profit at the end of a year?

8% is about what I have made per year on investments over the past 10 years, and all that money had to do was sit there.

THANK YOU!

There are a lot of irrationally angry people on the left who think that a profit of X billion $$ is obscene. But the fact is that they have little or no understanding of the investment that it took to net that profit, and what that profit means as a percentage of revenue, or the amount of dedication and hard work it took to make it happen.

EXXON is accountable to its shareholders. The shareholders have a reasonable expectation of EXXON's performance in its particular market, and that expectation is that EXXON will earn a profit, so that the value of their shares increases. If they cannot expect EXXON to perform, then why should they invest in EXXON to begin with? EXXON's only accountability to its customers is that it offer products of quality and price which are commensurate with its competitors' quality and price. Then the customer is free to choose to buy or not buy EXXON's products. But there is no way that EXXON's profits are obscene, when those profits represent only 8% of revenues. That 8% is their return on investment, and there are lots of corporations which earn a higher ROI than EXXON, but you never hear about it because EXXON is an EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeevil oil company.

Give me a break. Exactly how puny must EXXON's profits be so that people who think that 8% is obscene will be satisfied?

Nobody has a right to decide for someone else how much profit is enough profit. Those kinds of arguments come out of the same kind of mind which says that you don't need a "hi-cap" magazine, or an evil black rifle, or an SUV. It's nobody's danged business what caliber/capacity of pistol I choose to own, or what type of rifle I want to own, or what kind of vehicle I want to drive. Similarly, it is nobody's danged business how much profit EXXON earned in any given year. If you don't like it, buy Shell products instead, and stop contributing to EXXON's profits.........

........the free market at work.