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.
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.
Exemptions for certain items such as food? Possibly. If there were exemptions, I'd probably make them very very limited: milk, cheese, fresh eggs, fresh meats, and fresh produce. But here's where it gets complicated in my opinion. Do you exempt luxury food items that fall into these same categories: rack of lamb, ribeye steaks, New York strips, beef tenderloin, parmigiano-reggiano, etc? If you expand what is exempted beyond what I originally listed, do you exempt the "bad for you" foods that the "poor" consume in volumes today such as canned and processed foods?
I see why the prebate is alluring -- you don't have to worry about having a detailed "formulary" of what is and is not exempted. Nevertheless, I'm not a fan of prebating, and I'm really not that much of a fan of exemptions.
We can always just have a state lottery which does the same thing. Oh wait... we already have that.A flat tax is proportional by definition as everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. Sales taxes, on the other, hand are highly regressive because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income than people with higher incomes.
While I agree, I can see a brewing debate over what is considered food.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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."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...
Well played Seebell.
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.
You're behind the times...can you say, "cap-and-trade"?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...
Simply, yes.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.
Do they think it is unfair just far the simple fact that one group is so much wealthier than the rest?
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.
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.Do they think it is unfair just far the simple fact that one group is so much wealthier than the rest?
By the way, this thread was pretty good from a non-snarky-discussion perspective.Might it be that what we’re really seeing with wage stagnation is an indication that, for many low and middle-income workers, the compensation that would’ve gone into their pocketbook as cold hard cash is instead going in other directions—namely, to nonwage benefits? The left has its own answers for why wages remain stagnant in a time of improving productivity and economic growth. The Economic Policy Institute’s post-election January 2015 report talks about not only productivity gains and income inequality but also the decline in union membership, an insufficiently juiced minimum wage, the lack of more protectionist trade policies, the presence of more undocumented workers, and the absence of more sick and family leave. But are these really the culprits?
According to economist Scott Winship, of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the productivity gap simply doesn’t tell the whole story. According to his estimates, nonwage compensation as a share of total compensation effectively doubled from 1969 to 2011. In fact, Winship has calculated that when you compare real hourly compensation for the nonfarm business sector, it actually tracks closely with productivity measures over the past 65 years. His view is bolstered by James Sherk, of the Heritage Foundation, who says that while just looking at wages alone seems to support the arguments of progressives, expanding the picture to include noncash benefits offers a markedly different view. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a category it calls Labor Productivity and Costs (LPC), which includes noncash benefits. In Sherk’s words, “While hourly cash wages measured by the payroll survey have fallen 7 percent since 1973, total compensation as measured by LPC has risen 30 percent.”