a.k.a. a sin taxAlls I know is that if there were a pole tax - I mean, poll tax - my burden would be heavy.
Wealth inequality in America
- Thread starter chanson78
- Start date
This is why I am against any sort of exemptions. With a consumption tax people would have more control over their taxes. If the poor didn't want to pay as much tax then maybe they need to to stick with buying needs. The rich will more than likely simply ignore the consumption tax when it comes to keeping their wives' happy. The rich WILL NOT drop their lifestyle. They may not like paying a consumption tax but that pretty little thing in the bedroom ain't gone go without her luxurious lifestyle. :biggrin2:
If we start putting in exemptions then we'll end up back where we are now. Too many sucking off the system at the bottom and then eventually at the top. Leaving the real "suckers", the middle class to carry the load.
Food shouldn't be taxed, imo. At the very least someone should be able to eat and not have to pay the government for it - I don't care if it's simply potatoes or filet mignon.
When you're poor, every penny matters. I know, I've been there.
When you're poor, every penny matters. I know, I've been there.
We can always just have a state lottery which does the same thing. Oh wait... we already have that.
PS powerball is almost 200M
While I agree, I can see a brewing debate over what is considered food.
What if everything was taxable, but every individual got an annual check (a "tax return" of, say the average amount of taxes generated by food costs per individual for that year) based on their age and location?
You have to be a citizen to get the check, so it would provide some incentive for illegals to seek citizenship.
Tax would have no connection to income. Except, there would be a small component of wealth redistribution, since the wealthy would probably spend more on food and get the same amount returned.
There would be no arguments over what is taxable or not. No loopholes and no lobbying.
i am sure there are some practical issues, and maybe other factors that would make it a bad idea.
I am sure that every dollar of tax is more painful to someone who makes 30k than to someone who makes 300k - regardless of the stated rate. All taxes are regressive using this type of argument.
Regressivity is a fairness principle and everyone has a differnet viewpoint. How about an economic argument? Consumption taxes destroy more economic activity than income or property taxes - so I like income taxes better. Don't necessarily like income taxes; however, they have a smaller negative impact on the economy than sales taxes.
Regressivity is a fairness principle and everyone has a differnet viewpoint. How about an economic argument? Consumption taxes destroy more economic activity than income or property taxes - so I like income taxes better. Don't necessarily like income taxes; however, they have a smaller negative impact on the economy than sales taxes.
You're making it too difficult and adding expense (IRS) to the equation that would be elegantly simple otherwise - don't tax any food. You can argue about semantics all day long, but unless you want to end up with another system exactly like we have now, you have to step back and live with the generalizations and exceptions that will go along with this.
It's bad enough the government taxes everything we buy, but food? If you can rationalize that, we may as well start discussing taxation of air...
Income taxes are fine as long as they're not progressive - progressive income taxes simply punish success. I actually know guys who work closely with their accountants annually to determine when to shut down their business for the fiscal year to avoid over paying taxes. While I'm certain that's a small percentage, they do exist. A flat 10% where everybody pays on every dime earned (income / stocks / dividends - doesn't matter) would be equitable and tie the hands of our government. As long as they can find new things to tax and aren't tied to a flat rate, they'll continue to outspend income.
I think the amount of people we've got in this country taking money from the government that they've never put in, combined with the god knows how many illegals doing the same, is just as much or more damaging than any consumption tax.
The consumption tax allows people to actually have some form of control over what they pay in taxes. I'm with 'Audio, don't tax food. But more people that are currently not contributing to the pot need to be contributing, in some form. Plus, going by strictly income misses the "cash" market. Consumption taxes captures that market. Which is enormous.
Last edited:
I was agreeing with the idea of not taxing food, and I was actually trying to get us farther away from the current system and into a simpler system. Not taxing food sounds simple, but I think there would be a lot of money in classifying something as a food that isn't used as food - off the top of my head, I can already see this as a way of getting the govt involved in pushing ethanol since the corn could be bought "tax free."
ETA: Should have thought of a better example.
Last edited:
I don't know which shocks me more: that people who achieve valued skill sets and invest their earnings have a lot of money, or that people who are unconcerned with achievement and investing don't.
I'd just like to know why some think it is "unfair" the wealth is not more evenly distributed? Closing the tax loopholes for the rich, giving more money to the poor, middle class etc. isn't going shift anything. The rich will continue to find ways to make money, the middle people will not all of a sudden become "rich" and the "poor" isn't going to all of sudden become middle class.I don't know which shocks me more: that people who achieve valued skill sets and invest their earnings have a lot of money, or that people who are unconcerned with achievement and investing don't.
Do they think it is unfair just far the simple fact that one group is so much wealthier than the rest?
Last edited:
Simply, yes.
What I find most amazing is that those on the left expect their politicians to force redistribution onto the private citizens. Yet you won't find any of the uber-rich politicians on the left, and even the hero of their cause Obama, giving them any of their (or his) own money. It's always someone else who's money must be 'redistributed'. I don't think you'll find a stronger or more illustrative case of hypocrisy anywhere else in the world today.
Oops - I misspoke. I can think of another, but that's for a separate conversation.
Last edited:
Do you mind? Can we please leave the ugly truth out of this discussion? For the sake of social justice we must!I don't know which shocks me more: that people who achieve valued skill sets and invest their earnings have a lot of money, or that people who are unconcerned with achievement and investing don't.
FORWARD!
Maybe, or maybe it's simply their means of pacifying the rabble and protecting the bulk of their own wealth. Conservatives seem to rely on the rule of law and the Second Amendment while liberals seem to rely on freebies.
Here's an interesting article on "wage stagnation":
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-truth-about-wage-stagnation/
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-truth-about-wage-stagnation/
By the way, this thread was pretty good from a non-snarky-discussion perspective.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-