Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Are you referring to VAT? We've got that too, 15% on all 'non-essential' goods (which, much to my displeasure, was stretched to include Pringles earlier this year ) No, same tax rate for everything everyone purchases, with no more Federal income tax at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 No, same tax rate for everything everyone purchases, with no more Federal income tax at all. Going on the principle that rich people buy more stuff, poor people less stuff... which means that rich people will end up giving more of their money anyway... I mean, a poorer person is gonna buy their bread and water, while the rich will consume their foie gras and dom perignon... amidoinitrite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Going on the principle that rich people buy more stuff, poor people less stuff... which means that rich people will end up giving more of their money anyway... I mean, a poorer person is gonna buy their bread and water, while the rich will consume their foie gras and dom perignon...amidoinitrite?Yes. A GMC Yukon will bring in more tax revenue than a Ford Fusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Taxing in the suggested manner takes away the only carrot we collectively use to make people invest in our economy and replaces it with a stick that encourages them not to. The only reason I just purchased my home this year is because it would help lower my tax burden. Otherwise, I would have continued renting. Without my write-off (and this years' credit) that would be much cheaper. The same goes for businesses putting investment in their own infrastructure, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 bwahahaha...BWAHAHAHAHA! That could still happen. Weatherizing your home saves on energy bills, but you still have to pay for the weatherization up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Taxing in the suggested manner takes away the only carrot we collectively use to make people invest in our economy and replaces it with a stick that encourages them not to.The only reason I just purchased my home this year is because it would help lower my tax burden. Otherwise, I would have continued renting. Without my write-off (and this years' credit) that would be much cheaper. The same goes for businesses putting investment in their own infrastructure, etc. ummm, better read this.... http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/USSavingsRateFallsToZero.aspx Saving too much is certainly not going to be a problem anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 ummm, better read this....http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/USSavingsRateFallsToZero.aspx Correct. So now there's a "Saver's Credit". It's not enough to get the job done -- But see the idea? You can offer breaks to encourage the kind of collective financial behavior that helps keep the economy rolling in the direction we desire. Alternatively, how does taxing goods across the board help people save? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 That could still happen. Weatherizing your home saves on energy bills, but you still have to pay for the weatherization up front. I would love to find out how much medical cost can be attributed to expensive paper work. The only complaints I've ever heard where the complexity and cost of fileing medicare/medicaid....the only current government healthcare solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 I say we get rid of the IRS and use the money we save to buy our own health care plan...and just pass a consumer protection act Most people I know without health care still pay over $100+ a month for cable and never even look into buying their own or saving their money for such an event...gotta have TV. Id rather not enable people to not think for themselves any more then they don't. And those who don't make enough to pay for their own health care plan? What I don't understand is why it seems to be necessary to keep funneling money to the insurance companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 What I don't understand is why it seems to be necessary to keep funneling money to the insurance companies.Because a visit or 2 to the ER is expensive? $1,500/month in drug prescriptions is expensive? I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 I say we get rid of the IRS and use the money we save to buy our own health care plan...and just pass a consumer protection act Most people I know without health care still pay over $100+ a month for cable and never even look into buying their own or saving their money for such an event...gotta have TV. Id rather not enable people to not think for themselves any more then they don't. I don't think $100 a month goes very far for health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Correct. So now there's a "Saver's Credit". It's not enough to get the job done -- But see the idea? You can offer breaks to encourage the kind of collective financial behavior that helps keep the economy rolling in the direction we desire.Alternatively, how does taxing goods across the board help people save? umm, I didn't make the claim, just pointed out that forcing people to spend their money wasn't really needed in this country, we already spend every dime we get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 How about a National Sales tax where everyone pays the same percentage? It would cost me dearly, yet I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. Highly regressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don't think $100 a month goes very far for health insurance. Well, if we get the costs of those medical records down low enough..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Highly regressive. Highly fair.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_taxA regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. I don't see how a flat rate is "decreasing", it's more "flat". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yes. A GMC Yukon will bring in more tax revenue than a Ford Fusion. But rich people will still be paying a lot more than poor people. How is that different from the way things are now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Everyone should pay the same percentage for their government. The poor will pay a lot less because they buy a lot less. Kinda self regulating. On the other hand, they also spend a much higher percentage of their total income. They have to. Now, if you extend that sales tax to stocks and bonds, it might begin to move toward fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 I say we get rid of the IRS and use the money we save to buy our own health care plan...and just pass a consumer protection act Most people I know without health care still pay over $100+ a month for cable and never even look into buying their own or saving their money for such an event...gotta have TV. Id rather not enable people to not think for themselves any more then they don't. You posting makes too much sense. It could never happen as it would never get through Congress. As for those people needing the cable and TV, well, why would they save, when the government is there to save them from themselves? Wait . . . .who is then going to save them from the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 I would love to find out how much medical cost can be attributed to expensive paper work. The only complaints I've ever heard where the complexity and cost of fileing medicare/medicaid....the only current government healthcare solution. Yeah, I don't know that it would work, but still, one has to pay up front, even if one saves down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Because a visit or 2 to the ER is expensive? $1,500/month in drug prescriptions is expensive? I dunno. Immaterial. Why do insurance companies deserve a cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 On the other hand, they also spend a much higher percentage of their total income. They have to. Now, if you extend that sales tax to stocks and bonds, it might begin to move toward fairness. Stocks, Bonds, Bread, Diapers, tax it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 Stocks, Bonds, Bread, Diapers, tax it all. How is that fair then? A larger proportion of a lower-earning person's income will go straight onto food and rent. The rich person will have a far higher proportion not be taxed at all and go straight into the bank. Ergo, the lower earner will be paying a higher percentage of their income in tax, in an indirect way, so that means the lower earners will be supporting the government. I don't think any invasions will be able to be effectively funded in that manner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 And those who don't make enough to pay for their own health care plan? Why the Government will take the money from someone else and if you don't qualify for the handout and don't buy, they will just fine you, silly! In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Immaterial. Why do insurance companies deserve a cut?They are pooling everyone's money and doing risk management. Why would they not deserve a cut, if they are assuming risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted July 9, 2009 Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 umm, I didn't make the claim, just pointed out that forcing people to spend their money wasn't really needed in this country, we already spend every dime we get. We're not forced to. I chose to purchase a home because, after my deduction, it would be only slightly more expensive than what I was renting for. If that incentive wasn't there I would have chose to continue renting, because now I am paying much more a month on my mortgage (for a smaller place) than I was in rent. Likewise, my office just purchased a couple new servers. They will increase our efficiency and (hopefully) help our growth. Part of the reason the choice was made to fund these upgrades is we can depreciate the value against our income. Taxing that purchase in the manner you described would have probably nullified the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.