National debt limit

[Scanner]

KTP:

I guess what I find so frustrating about the GOP is this philosophy of

"Welllllll. . .GE (the rich) provides jobs. Therefore, we should give them special consideration."

A. Jobs/labor is tax deductible. If a business is actually looking to reduce tax liability, they would hire. The whole subject is kind of independent of taxation. You hire for one reason only - to gain leverage. That employee will net you more money than you could by yourself (by usually a 3:1 margin - that is if you pay an employee $50,000, you want to usually have that employee generate $150,000).

B. That kind of argument must have been something like the Slave Owners in the South used in 1859.

"Well, these slaves have a home. . .we feed them. . .without us, they'd be wandering the streets. Therefore, we deserve special moral consideration."

WTF?

Because a wealthy person gives a person a job scrubbing the toilets in his corporation, he shouldn't have to pay taxes?

Where do they get this stuff? More importantly. . .isn't the GOP ashamed to even forward a moral argument like that?

Where does the GOP philosophically come up with this stuff? It's some bizarre, twisted logic that because Reagan cut taxes in 1981 (and yes, that was a good thing) across the board. . .well, they derive and over-extrapolate all kinds of economic theory. Pandering to the rich must be a good thing, right?

Never mind the moral reprehensibility of what they suggest - Plutocrats get special consideration.

What to me is the amazing thing is you have many people in the Red States, poor and working class, screaming it at the top of their lungs. It's amazing that they have sold an air conditioner to Eskimo's and they are screaming for more.

[KTP]

True points about the GOP, but the democrats have just as many faults. I think you can find valid arguements to show both camps are insane to some degree.

An independent makes the most sense, but is probably un-electable.

[Snodog]

What to me is the amazing thing is you have many people in the Red States, poor and working class, screaming it at the top of their lungs. It's amazing that they have sold an air conditioner to Eskimo's and they are screaming for more.

Good analogy! I always found it bizarre myself...it’s like a reverse French Revolution in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy!

[shanecurran]

Switching our country off the idea of income tax (which taxes productivity) and getting us on VAT (a consumption tax) or even a flat tax (it's dispicable that GE doesn't contribute anything to our country, as well as the poor should pay something) is something every American would embrace regardless of party affilation.

The problem with consumption taxes is that they are regressive by nature. They may seem fair on the surface, but in reality they are regressive.

[shanecurran]

What to me is the amazing thing is you have many people in the Red States, poor and working class, screaming it at the top of their lungs.

I never understood this either. How have the republicans accomplished this?

[KTP]

The problem with consumption taxes is that they are regressive by nature. They may seem fair on the surface, but in reality they are regressive.

If you exempt unprocessed foods and basic medical supplies/drugs from tax then consumption taxes are not regressive at all. If you choose to eat out, drive a car instead of public transportation or biking, smoke, drink, etc. etc. then you also choose to pay the consumption tax on that. A person making $20,000 a year could pay 0 taxes with just those basic food and medical exemptions while a rich person is not going to prepare their own food or use public transportation, etc. and will end up paying the majority of the consumption tax. It would be such an easy fair system and would actually encourage working, since there would be no tax downside to having extra income.

[shanecurran]

If you exempt unprocessed foods and basic medical supplies/drugs from tax then consumption taxes are not regressive at all. If you choose to eat out, drive a car instead of public transportation or biking, smoke, drink, etc. etc. then you also choose to pay the consumption tax on that. A person making $20,000 a year could pay 0 taxes with just those basic food and medical exemptions while a rich person is not going to prepare their own food or use public transportation, etc. and will end up paying the majority of the consumption tax. It would be such an easy fair system and would actually encourage working, since there would be no tax downside to having extra income.

False. Exempting food, medical supplies would make it less regressive, but it would still be regressive.

The more money you make the smaller the portion of income spent on consumption.

[Snodog]

I agree that a consumption tax much the way KTP describes would seem to be the fairest way to tax. Of course you would need to credit ROTH IRA owners in some way to make up for the tax they pay.

[Snodog]

False. Exempting food, medical supplies would make it less regressive, but it would still be regressive.

The more money you make the smaller the portion of income spent on consumption.

Yeah I would also exempt housing and cars(up to certain levels) and maybe a few other things. You could for example exempt any house < avg price for the area. Then you could tax the homes progressively as they got more expensive.

[disneysteve]

Yeah I would also exempt housing and cars(up to certain levels) and maybe a few other things. You could for example exempt any house < avg price for the area. Then you could tax the homes progressively as they got more expensive.

In the end, you'd probably end up creating a tax system just as complex and unbalanced with just as many loopholes as the current system. They would just be all new loopholes. The lobbyists for the various industries would find ways to still make their products desirable to consumers.

[Snodog]

In the end, you'd probably end up creating a tax system just as complex and unbalanced with just as many loopholes as the current system. They would just be all new loopholes. The lobbyists for the various industries would find ways to still make their products desirable to consumers.

You may be right!

Maybe a nice big juicy prebate is the way to go.

[shanecurran]

In the end, you'd probably end up creating a tax system just as complex and unbalanced with just as many loopholes as the current system. They would just be all new loopholes. The lobbyists for the various industries would find ways to still make their products desirable to consumers.

Absolutely right! This is the problem with a consumption tax. It seems simple on the surface, but in order to make a consumption tax fair it would have to be as complex as the current system. This is why I oppose the idea of a consumption tax.

[Scanner]

It certainly has the potential to be complex and history as a guide, does say it will lead to that.

That being said, just lifting the tax off of productivity in of itself would be far worth it. Motivating some people to work, where they never have been motivated before. Not saying every sloth would get up and work, but I think it could serve as a tipping point in some situations.

Moreover, it's really not about not taxing what is "essential." Anything with any cost to society involves a cost.

We need to maintain an army to protect our oil interests - tax that. If you are rich and you own a mansion, tax that. . .as it's a big sinkhole of energy. You want a greasy hamburger. . .that's fine to consume. . .but there is an associated healthcare cost with that. . .tax that.

And so on.

[Scanner]

shanecurran
$ Saving Sixth Grader Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 65
Points: 360.00
Donate



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scanner
What to me is the amazing thing is you have many people in the Red States, poor and working class, screaming it at the top of their lungs.

I never understood this either. How have the republicans accomplished this?
__________________

I am not sure, honestly. It's amazing really and the analogy of a reverse French revolution is a good one.

I think still fresh in everyone's mind is Ronald Reagan's lifting of all taxes in 1981/82 and what a great economic stimulator it was - he lifted it on the rich and the middle class and poor and it jump started our economy. It propelled him into "DemiGod-hood" in the party and that was seen as kind of a Panacea for all woes. Never mind he hiked taxes after that, George Bush hiked taxes and Clinton hiked taxes. All they rememeber is the Reagan Tax Cut. . .so they want him on the nickel now.

Economic slump? Tax cut.
Need to fight a war in Afghanistan? Tax cut.
Want to a manned mission to Mars? Tax cut.

I know this is only a partial explanation. . .I think also the "Socialist!" slur they have foisted upon Democrats has really stuck. Socialists to a lot of people = Red Russian Evil Communists from James Bond with Razor Teeth that chomp their enemies.

So. . .to be Pro-Labor or Pro-Union. . .well. . .anyone harboring that kind of ideal within the Republican Party would be vetted out.

I don't know. . .it really is a complex sociological question you posed. . .one of the great sales jobs of all time.

[GREENBACK]

I really don't think we need a drastic change to our system but I am somewhat intrigued by the idea of a flat tax. If we looked at things in a logical and practical manner we could solve our problem. The fighting between the two parties absolutely prevents this. Nobody looks beyond the next election to do what's right for the country. Unfortunately, I don't see this changing anytime soon.