It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Economy => Topic started by: BMG on May 03, 2012, 09:58:26 PM
-
Bloomberg VAT LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-02/value-added-tax-would-raise-tons-for-u-s-coffers.html)
With the exception of the U.S., every country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has a value-added tax -- one on business sales that functions much like a retail sales tax. It’s time for the U.S. to join that club.
Unfortunately, the VAT hasn’t been a central feature of most tax-reform discussions. Bipartisan plans such as the one proposed by the commission led by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles focused on expanding the personal income tax base while cutting rates, so that more revenue could be collected without hurting the economy. The calculation seemed to be that Americans were unlikely to accept an entirely new tax, so we should focus on making the income tax better.
Here we go again (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/29/volcker-carbon-tax-vat-should-be-on-the-table/tab/article/). How dumb must a person be to willingly submit to a VAT (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172190620528592.html)? I wonder how 'flexible' (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36694) Obumbles will be on a VAT if he gets a second term?
-
There's only about 33 1/3 of the people who are willing to
be taxed again and they have a long playing record of
favoring taxation. Even those asleep at the wheel jolt awake
when they hear the word 'tax'.
-
NO.
There's the absolute without need to qualify it in any way.
-
I have mixed feelings about a VAT or any other kind of sales tax.
On the one hand, I would be perfectly fine with that type of taxation IF income tax (both personal and corporate AND capital gains AND estate) were permanently repealed. The main reason that I favor it is that at least more people would be paying something in taxes as opposed to the present situation where about half do and half don't. The other reasons that I favor it is that it largely eliminates the IRS as a source of intimidation and it eliminates the ridiculously convoluted tax code.
On the other hand, as a business owner I am not inclined to appreciate being an unpaid tax collector for the federal government.
Fat chance, though, that the income tax will EVER be repealed so my opinions in that direction are rather meaningless.
I want no part of a VAT or any other form of national sales tax that is piled on top of the income tax. That's just stupid.
One more caveat: I would favor a Constitutional amendment that outlaws ALL income taxes...federal, state and/or local. They are inherently unfair (for a host of reasons) and are a disincentive to productivity. I am not in favor of a flat (income) tax for the same reasons.
-
I like the 'sales tax only' because it allows me to choose
whether I want to pay the tax or not.
-
I think replacing the current monstrosity with something like a VAT would be infinitely more equitable, simple, and logical than anything we've known in our lifetimes. Thus, Democrats and Republicans will not do it. Simple as that. If it comes, it'll be an oppressive add-on, not a replacement.
-
A Federal sales tax instead of all the other taxes would actually bring more dollars into the national coffers and strengthen the economy because every person that purchases anything would be contributing. From the under the table agricultural migrant worker (and non-taxpaying drug dealer) to the foreigner here on vacation. And those who make more money will pay more (in dollars not percent of wealth) because they will still buy the higher ticket items. It will encourage savings which will strengthen the banks and make more money available to loan to the businesses who need to make payroll, which will lower rates naturally instead of this artificial crap that is destroying us. Lower rates mean business will be able to hire more who will have cash to spend which will add more to the general fund. But I absolutely agree with Trap, all other taxes need to be outlawed, I also believe that there needs to be a Balanced Budget Amendment. Otherwise the worse than "drunken sailors" in Washington spending our hard earned cash will continue to send this once great nation further down the drain.
-
Y'all really want a Value Added Tax to every level of production up to retail? Really? Every level?
NO.
-
Y'all really want a Value Added Tax to every level of production up to retail? Really? Every level?
NO.
I'm with you on that, Pan.
I can only imagine the number of tax code pages it would take to define "production" or "value-added". And then just for fun we could give "exceptions" to companies who are "green".
Make mine a super big NO.
-
Everytime this comes up, the left hijacks the debate and no longer are we talking about one tax replacing another but another tax added onto the others. So, since we can't even trust our own to not bend us over, HELL NO to ANY TAXES!
-
I'm still an advocate of the FAIR tax. None of the other systems replace our current system, they only add on to it. And even if we somehow magically did away with our current system and then instituted a VAT all by itself, I'd be opposed to that for the very reason(s) Pan has just outlined. VAT = regressive in every sense of the word!
-
VAT = Sales Tax on steriods. Hell, I don't even like sales taxes! ::gaah::
-
NO.
There's the absolute without need to qualify it in any way.
Oh yes there is.
HELL NO.
-
VAT = Sales Tax on steriods. Hell, I don't even like sales taxes! ::gaah::
Sales taxes are the most iniquitable of all taxes...the one tax that truly does punish the poor. And VAT is the worst implementation of sales tax possible.
-
I'm not saying I pine for a VAT tax - only that as a replacement for the progressive income tax, it would be preferable by a long-shot.
I See EW's point about sales tax "punishing" the poor, but an argument is easily made that a tax that does not kick in until one chooses to purchase something is the only voluntary tax possible. The poor and about 45% of the non-poor pay no federal income tax. We are at a tipping point of democratic tyranny when a simple non-tax-paying majority can elect to perpetually pilfer from the productive class. Replacing that with a sales tax - even a VAT tax - would eliminate that poisonous dynamic, and put skin in the game for nearly everyone.
-
I've posted this on a different thread here (concerning Herman Cain's 999 plan) but now seems like a good time to revisit it.
"A VAT is an *ADDITIONAL* tax on every step of production. If someone picks cotton it is taxed because it was 'improved' when it was picked. Spin it into thread...'improved', taxed again. Dye it different colors...'improved', taxed again. Turn it into a pair of socks...'improved', taxed again. The corporation at the end of this line of 'improvements' pays all that extra tax when they receive the finished product because those taxes were passed along to each new link in the production chain and then they put that extra cost in the price of their finished product when they sell it to the consumer. That extra cost is not called a tax then. It isn't on the receipt as 'VAT tax' it is never 'seen' by the public. That is exactly why politicians love it. Because, just like our current system, the people never see the money leaving their wallets through taxation. They only see the cost of a pair of socks jump from $5 to $6 and think it's just raising costs and not an oppressive tax by our Government. As you can see, VAT is not a sales tax on corporations, it is a regressive tax on every single person in the country because the corporations only pass that extra tax burden on to you and I. If you want some real damage done to our economy push for a VAT tax because that is what would happen if it were ever instituted. Don't think so? Simply look at the mediocrity of the economies of every country involved in the European Union which are required to institute a VAT if they want to join the EU."
I'm afraid I can not under ANY circumstances be convinced to accept a VAT. It is as insidious as our current system and the worst part of it is that it would most likely be *ADDED* onto our current system.
-
I See EW's point about sales tax "punishing" the poor,
Do the poor have any obligation to contribute to the upkeep of the community?
Is that obligation less for someone who has less money than me?
-
I See EW's point about sales tax "punishing" the poor,
Do the poor have any obligation to contribute to the upkeep of the community?
Is that obligation less for someone who has less money than me?
Of course they do, something they currently get out of with a progressive income tax.
A one time flat rate income tax, along with an elimination of all "corporate" taxes would be much simpler to administer.
There are some usage based taxes that probably make sense: using a small fuel tax for road construction, for example. I would also note that since roads are specifically mentioned as a Constitutional duty of government, it makes sense to structure a tax levy that is tied to the use of them somehow.
-
I'm not saying I pine for a VAT tax - only that as a replacement for the progressive income tax, it would be preferable by a long-shot.
I See EW's point about sales tax "punishing" the poor, but an argument is easily made that a tax that does not kick in until one chooses to purchase something is the only voluntary tax possible. The poor and about 45% of the non-poor pay no federal income tax. We are at a tipping point of democratic tyranny when a simple non-tax-paying majority can elect to perpetually pilfer from the productive class. Replacing that with a sales tax - even a VAT tax - would eliminate that poisonous dynamic, and put skin in the game for nearly everyone.
I am not convinced that it would. I think the portion of the voting public that pays no (federal) income tax is unlikely to realize what portion of their income is "stolen" from them in sales (or value added) taxes already. I am assuming that they just attribute costs to cost of production without realizing that they always pay a significant markup on items in tax; and while that may not be a valid assumption, anecdotally it seems to hold.
My proposal to motivate tax revolt would be to require a "Tax Facts" label, like the ridiculous "Nutrition Facts" label required on food that details what and where the tax composition of a consumer good is. Until everybody knows, I think the economically uneducated are going to continue to vote for tyranny.
/Alternatively, we could require that all schools teach Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics...
-
A sales tax only is the cleanest tax, eliminate food, basic clothing, doctor/prescription medication and housing sales tax and the poor
are exempted from penalty.
-
I'm not saying I pine for a VAT tax - only that as a replacement for the progressive income tax, it would be preferable by a long-shot.
I See EW's point about sales tax "punishing" the poor, but an argument is easily made that a tax that does not kick in until one chooses to purchase something is the only voluntary tax possible. The poor and about 45% of the non-poor pay no federal income tax. We are at a tipping point of democratic tyranny when a simple non-tax-paying majority can elect to perpetually pilfer from the productive class. Replacing that with a sales tax - even a VAT tax - would eliminate that poisonous dynamic, and put skin in the game for nearly everyone.
I am not convinced that it would. I think the portion of the voting public that pays no (federal) income tax is unlikely to realize what portion of their income is "stolen" from them in sales (or value added) taxes already. I am assuming that they just attribute costs to cost of production without realizing that they always pay a significant markup on items in tax; and while that may not be a valid assumption, anecdotally it seems to hold.
My proposal to motivate tax revolt would be to require a "Tax Facts" label, like the ridiculous "Nutrition Facts" label required on food that details what and where the tax composition of a consumer good is. Until everybody knows, I think the economically uneducated are going to continue to vote for tyranny.
/Alternatively, we could require that all schools teach Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics...
::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup:: ::thumbsup::
-
...My proposal to motivate tax revolt would be to require a "Tax Facts" label, like the ridiculous "Nutrition Facts" label required on food that details what and where the tax composition of a consumer good is....
Excellent idea. A conservative politician advocating a simple government accountability plan like that would be carried into office in every state that isn't +5 "D" safe. Mittens should run on it. It would serve the dual function of holding DC accountable to the people by using the same ridiculous types of moronic edicts they use to stick their fingers in the eyes of liberty at every turn.
Tangentially, I noticed a couple days ago on a bottle of Dawn liquid dish soap, the label header says, "Drug Facts". Drug facts. On dish soap. I don't know who is more moronic, bureaucrats who feel the need to label dish soap as a drug, or people who would look at it and somehow come to the conclusion that it is made for ingestion.
Alternatively, we could require that all schools teach Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics...
Another excellent idea.
-
Tangentially, I noticed a couple days ago on a bottle of Dawn liquid dish soap, the label header says, "Drug Facts". Drug facts. On dish soap.
“I have experimented with crude oil in Alaska and found that by injecting and placing DAWN DISH SOAP on the surface and directly over the oil will break up the crude oil and in some instances will completely dissolve the oil,” James B. wrote from Anchorage, Alaska. “WORTH TRYING.”
The BP spokesman said the dish soap idea isn't all that far from the dispersant the company is showering over the spill in hopes of breaking it up.
LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37138794/ns/business-us_business/#.T6Q3_9kqiOk)
As one the worst oil spills in American history continues to wreak havoc in the Gulf Coast, local birds and animals are finding themselves muddied in toxic sludge. Surprisingly, volunteers and rescue crews are using a common household ingredient to clean up the oil-coated wildlife -- Dawn dishwashing liquid.
The “tough on grease” dish detergent, commonly found at kitchen sinks across America, is used by animal rescue and rehabilitation teams to help gently remove oil from feathers, fur, and skin of oil-soaked critters. Procter & Gamble, which owns Dawn, has donated thousands of bottles to wildlife conservation programs over the past 30 years, cleansing more than 75,000 animals.
LINK (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/dawn-dishwashing-liquid-being-used-to-clean-animals-affec)
And, of course, inevitably ...
Is it possible that BP’s irresponsible and hazardous use of millions of gallons of toxic dispersant is now catching up to them, as it seems signs of illness are starting to show in the workers BP hired to help clean up their catastrophic oil spill?
A quick rundown of three cases of BP workers and citizens in the area who seem to have been sickened by Corexit provides a clear picture.
LINK (http://theintelhub.com/2011/04/17/mystery-illnesses-in-louisiana-linked-to-bp-oil-spill/)
Voila! Drug facts on Dawn dish soap.
-
A sales tax only is the cleanest tax, eliminate food, basic clothing, doctor/prescription medication and housing sales tax and the poor are exempted from penalty.
One reason that I personally do not like sales taxes is that they make every entrepreneur into an agent of the government. (Admittedly, so does income tax on wages.) Having grown up in a sales tax free state, I still have not shed my annoyance at having to calculate the addition necessary to get something at the store, so the irksome value is also a factor.
But most of all, sales tax is a tax on consumption, which I think is the wrong end of the marketplace to put it on. I think it depresses production and innovation, where a flat rate income tax on wages would not. Income tax is the successor to property tax, when property tax in an agrarian society was actually a tax on income potential.
The best solution is of course to reduce the government back to its constitutionally mandated functions, then see just how much revenue is necessary to accomplish those functions. Then we could figure out if a simple tax structure would be sufficient to carry the day.
-
The best solution is of course to reduce the government back to its constitutionally mandated functions, then see just how much revenue is necessary to accomplish those functions. Then we could figure out if a simple tax structure would be sufficient to carry the day.
I can appreciate your resentment at having to calculate every transaction.
Having resided for some time in an income tax free (sales tax) state the
idea of paying two income taxes is revolting. It is my choice whether I want
to pay tax or not. If I want it I pay, if I do not want it I don't and I don't
pay any tax.
-
The best solution is of course to reduce the government back to its constitutionally mandated functions, then see just how much revenue is necessary to accomplish those functions. Then we could figure out if a simple tax structure would be sufficient to carry the day.
I can appreciate your resentment at having to calculate every transaction.
Having resided for some time in an income tax free (sales tax) state the
idea of paying two income taxes is revolting. It is my choice whether I want
to pay tax or not. If I want it I pay, if I do not want it I don't and I don't
pay any tax.
That is actually what bothers me about it: your economic choices in the market have been circumscribed by the perceived tax penalty that you are unwilling to pay, and a vendor in the market is penalized for it!
-
I agree that VAT is stupid in that it is a compounding sales tax. But it really is six of one or half a dozen of another because the state will set a simple sales tax at a rate that will (supposedly) meet the needs of revenue regardless if the tax is one way or another.
And yeah, it's pretty much true that government in general needs to be put on a diet...a machete diet where several limbs are hacked off would be a good start.
Here's the other thing about the income tax that is inherently unfair: It allows government to pick winners and losers via deductions and credits. This is no small thing because it gives legislators the power that they crave. These people need to be (figuratively) castrated...separated from this power. There is always a lot of talk about the need for term limits but if there was not as much power associated with being a legislator then maybe there would be less of an incentive to make a lifelong career out of it.
An elimination of income taxes (federal and state) in exchange for sales taxes seems to me to be a pretty good deal in a great many ways. Oh yeah, there would need to be a ban on "fees," too.
-
Revenues need to be raised in some manner, but the government requiring a cut of every sales transaction pisses me off.
The government's nose in my financial business as regards income pisses me off.
Please, no lectures about it's one way or the other. As I wrote, a certain amount of revenue is necessary, but the collection methods of each are intrusive and they piss me off. I'm tired of the government in my business.
-
Please, no lectures about it's one way or the other.
A collection of lectures one way or the other is the nature of discussion or debate or argument. The above is my opinion and point of view. Others' mileage may vary.
-
When you pay state tax via sales they don't know
anything about your business.
-
Good point.
-
Please, no lectures about it's one way or the other.
A collection of lectures one way or the other is the nature of discussion or debate or argument. The above is my opinion and point of view. Others' mileage may vary.
So I noted already, my comment was not related to yours, and I don't need a reminder. More in line with EW's comment. ::saywhat:: ::curtsy4::
-
When you pay state tax via sales they don't know
anything about your business.
Never said that was the piss-off point for me as to sales taxes:
Revenues need to be raised in some manner, but the government requiring a cut of every sales transaction pisses me off.
By what authority do they claim a piece of every transaction in each state? Because they "need" the money? None of this is their business.
-
Right now attempts to reform revenue generation by taxation are hampered by a persistent belief that the "poor" are owed something by the "wealthy."
As LadyVirginia pointed out, the poor have just as much an obligation to fund the legitimate activities of government as anyone else. In other words, the most "just" or "fair" taxation policy requires that the poor pay the same tax bill (for the same level of service) as anyone else. It is arguable that some individuals or entities consume a higher level of service than others, and that their taxes should be proportionate~leading to the conclusion that a sales or income tax probably is inefficient in recouping those costs. It may be that there are other more equitable ways to levy taxes than either a consumption or an income tax.
But until we overcome the socialist notion that others are "entitled" to a portion of the national wealth that they did not contribute to, we will not be able to explore alternatives.
-
The original federal government was supported by tariffs - but international and inter-state. Most goods that came from overseas were finished luxury goods- and the founders wanted to encourage local manufacturing. So in effect our original taxation system was a tax on the "rich" - those who could afford to move large amounts of goods over the borders the Federal government controlled - and those goods, because of the extra tariff, often were the goods purchased by the "Rich"
If you read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention you will find that the Founders did feel that the rich should bear a larger portion of the burden of government - because the primary goal of that Government was to protect property. The Rich had more property to protect, and therefore should be paying a higher proportion of the cost.
Now the government doesn't protect that wealth, it redistributes it. Its a criminal enterprise where the productive are extorted under threat to provide for the beneficiaries of the syndicate. We pay you off, you elect us and we rinse and repeat.
I have asked liberals why they don't split their dinner checks in the same fashion? Why do they not add up the earnings of everyone at the table and demand that they pay a fair share based on their percentage? I also asked how often he would expect his "rich" friends to go to dinner with "poor" friends, knowing that every time they would pay 98% of the bill? Than I ask about other people at the restaurant-- why don't they demand that the bill be split across every patron in the house the same way? After all, its not like you are friends with every taxpayer? And why not across every Restaurant in the city? And they why not every citizen - even if they didn't choose to go to a restaurant that night. You will find quickly that in their own transactions, Liberals define "fair" as "paying for what they consume" if they are the one paying - its only when they are "getting something for nothing" that "fair" is suddenly defined as ability to pay- regardless of actual consumption. They will then usually argue that "they pay taxes too" and they don't get any return when the poor are helped. I usually point out that it is THEY who want to help the poor using government programs, where I know that only 30% of every dollar goes to help anyone, 30% is wasted in fraud, and I choose to give to organizations where 90% gets where it is going, but I can't - because they just forced me to support it THEIR way by force. What they get is THEIR WAY - without having to bear the full cost of it. Its not different than ordering caviar and expensive wine at the restaurant, and then demanding the a rich man across town, eating at home, pay the majority of the cost of his meal.Of course liberals are "happy to pay their taxes" - they get what they want, this fabulous meal, but they get it at 1/10 the price because they force others to subsidize it. The rich man across town who pays, consumes none of it - he gets nothing HE wants - he is paying for what you want, and are unwilling to pay the full cost of yourself.
Taxation is required in any case. The compliance costs are probably the most important thing to look at - because they create millions of monkey jobs that don't actually contribute to wealth production. You pay a guy to do you taxes, and what is produced? Its Make-Work. You are digging holes to fill them in again. They are cost centers for the society. A flat income tax with no deductions is going to have the lowest compliance costs. Then a Graduated flat tax. A flat vat tax will be the next lowest - for while it requires millions to become tax collectors, again the calculation is simple and collection is simple.
The IRS just sent us a tax bill for $70K. We failed to file a form. They in actuality owe use $400. Was was the cost of trying to enforce the tax code here? MichelleO spent nearly a day figuring out our mistake. What other production could she have been engaged in. How much time did the IRS spend finding the mistake, and how much time will it take for them to enter and approve of the correction? What if they don't? What if we go to court over it? The costs are huge - and they produce NOTHING anyone can use.
In a properly functioning government, I think the Founder's principle still holds - that the rich "consume" more of the protective services, the courts, etc, than the poor will, and therefore SHOULD pay more. A sales taxes takes care of that implicitly - the rich buy more of and more expensive goods. I do not think the cost of government to the poor should be zero. They should pay something. And if they don't - you should get no vote. If you can't pay your own way in life , then you are not grown up or responsible enough to vote. Say that to a liberal and watch their face go red.
(edited by IDP to eliminate 6 inches of white at the bottom of post)
-
I must admit I'd not looked at sales tax from the angle EW does - that in addition to placing the decision about whether to incur tax on the consumer at the point of purchase, the decision to avoid tax by not purchasing dampens commerce and harms the private sector. Simple logic. I'd be ashamed for not seeing it if not for the enjoyment of expanding my point of view on taxes.
::hat-tip::
-
The compliance costs are probably the most important thing to look at - because they create millions of monkey jobs that don't actually contribute to wealth production. You pay a guy to do you taxes, and what is produced? Its Make-Work. You are digging holes to fill them in again. They are cost centers for the society.
That 'cost of compliance' works out to 300-500 BILLION dollars spent each year with our current tax code according to the last stats I read.
-
I must admit I'd not looked at sales tax from the angle EW does - that in addition to placing the decision about whether to incur tax on the consumer at the point of purchase, the decision to avoid tax by not purchasing dampens commerce and harms the private sector. Simple logic. I'd be ashamed for not seeing it if not for the enjoyment of expanding my point of view on taxes.
::hat-tip::
Any tax is going to dampen commerce. Tax income, and I have less to invest to buy stuff with, and less incentive to earn the next dollar. Tax sales, and I am less inclined to purchase. Tax activities and I am less likely to engage in those activities.
There may be different degrees to which different methods affect growth, but I suspect those differences lie mostly in the additional compliance costs inflicted by those methods, and not so much is specific items that are taxed. The point is you want to collect only the amount required for the services to be delivered ( and the redistribution of wealth and "charity" are not services - or at least not services that we agreed to or that are in line with the principles of freedom. Once the government collects a tax for the not the general welfare, but for the specific welfare of an individual or group and the expense of others, its indentured servitude - because that group becomes entitled by law to a share of my labor - they own it, legally. )
We could easily run the Federal government on current revenues if we had no entitlement systems, subsidies, or handouts. Too bad the only way such things will be eliminated is by the collapse of the system.
-
I must admit I'd not looked at sales tax from the angle EW does - that in addition to placing the decision about whether to incur tax on the consumer at the point of purchase, the decision to avoid tax by not purchasing dampens commerce and harms the private sector. Simple logic. I'd be ashamed for not seeing it if not for the enjoyment of expanding my point of view on taxes.
::hat-tip::
Any tax is going to dampen commerce....
Right, and I understood that. What I hadn't thought through was the idea that placing the decision of under what conditions tax is paid into the hands of consumers related to each purchase, would result in a direct negative impact on the likelihood of commerce even taking place, on each purchase at the point of each sale.
With flat income tax or even our current crappy progressive system, the negative effect is in real dollars remaining after tax, but not in your face at the point of sale. So while each purchase is impacted by the reality of available dollars, each decision to purchase doesn't hinge on whether one wishes to pay the particular tax at that particular moment. It would seem to favor the "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" ideal of a percentage of income, if only to aid in the perception of unfettered commerce at the point of sale.
Whether that is right or wrong thinking is not my point - only that I had not considered it before. I had always assumed that a sales tax would be superior because it would give consumers the most control, and put skin in the game for everyone. That other angle is something I had not looked at.
-
I must admit I'd not looked at sales tax from the angle EW does - that in addition to placing the decision about whether to incur tax on the consumer at the point of purchase, the decision to avoid tax by not purchasing dampens commerce and harms the private sector. Simple logic. I'd be ashamed for not seeing it if not for the enjoyment of expanding my point of view on taxes.
::hat-tip::
Any tax is going to dampen commerce....
Right, and I understood that. What I hadn't thought through was the idea that placing the decision of under what conditions tax is paid into the hands of consumers related to each purchase, would result in a direct negative impact on the likelihood of commerce even taking place, on each purchase at the point of each sale.
Not just if so or not, but if so, then where?
Brick and mortar = pay the sales tax, and one county's tax is higher/lower than another's.
Online = weigh S&H as opposed to sales tax, and maybe pay both.
With flat income tax or even our current crappy progressive system, the negative effect is in real dollars remaining after tax, but not in your face at the point of sale.
No, not at the point of sale in this context, but often at the point where the cost of selling one's labor results in net loss of income. People who are aware of where they are on the tax-bracket table will decide against a second income due to the tax implications, as will they keep overtime hours worked within a certain number.
So while each purchase is impacted by the reality of available dollars, each decision to purchase doesn't hinge on whether one wishes to pay the particular tax at that particular moment. It would seem to favor the "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" ideal of a percentage of income, if only to aid in the perception of unfettered commerce at the point of sale.
Whether that is right or wrong thinking is not my point - only that I had not considered it before. I had always assumed that a sales tax would be superior because it would give consumers the most control, and put skin in the game for everyone. That other angle is something I had not looked at.
This comes as such second nature to some it's almost subconscious. The sales tax on a new vehicle in NJ (or NC) is prohibitive enough that some folks will opt for a used one instead for just that reason. (I know my parents always did.)
-
Taxation is required in any case. The compliance costs are probably the most important thing to look at - because they create millions of monkey jobs that don't actually contribute to wealth production. You pay a guy to do you taxes, and what is produced? Its Make-Work. You are digging holes to fill them in again.
Which is why I was happy to leave tax accounting behind.... ;D
-
. What I hadn't thought through was the idea that placing the decision of under what conditions tax is paid into the hands of consumers related to each purchase, would result in a direct negative impact on the likelihood of commerce even taking place, on each purchase at the point of each sale.
I am not sure out of sight, out of mind works. If I am at the point of sale and I know what I have in the bank , and I know the amount of tax that needs to be paid-I can make a decision. I often delay purchases in Jan or Feb, in order to see what my tax bill is, before deciding to make a purchase. Uncertainty is probably going to be more of a deterrent than a sales tax. But it now or buy it later, you will pay the tax. If the sales tax you pay is the primary reason for not purchasing, then you didn't need the thing in the first place.
I suspect those for who taxes are out of sight, out of mind, probably won't notice the sales tax added either.
-
. What I hadn't thought through was the idea that placing the decision of under what conditions tax is paid into the hands of consumers related to each purchase, would result in a direct negative impact on the likelihood of commerce even taking place, on each purchase at the point of each sale.
I am not sure out of sight, out of mind works. If I am at the point of sale and I know what I have in the bank , and I know the amount of tax that needs to be paid-I can make a decision. I often delay purchases in Jan or Feb, in order to see what my tax bill is, before deciding to make a purchase. Uncertainty is probably going to be more of a deterrent than a sales tax. But it now or buy it later, you will pay the tax. If the sales tax you pay is the primary reason for not purchasing, then you didn't need the thing in the first place.
I suspect those for who taxes are out of sight, out of mind, probably won't notice the sales tax added either.
It's very true that any tax is going to dampen commerce, but I think sales taxes are worse in that regard than a flat rate income tax if only for the example of startup ventures that often don't turn a profit for some time after inception. No income, no tax. But the sales tax is always there as another cost borne by the enterprise and it may be the turning point between success and failure in a low margin venture.
And in that sense I would rather that tax policy encourages commerce; or at least penalizes it as little as possible.
And the cost of compliance is huge: we could make significant cost savings there by simplification. As noted above, I certainly am not wedded to only an income tax. I do think that everyone, including the poor, should pay a fair amount for the services they use. If the "wealthy," or commercial interests use an inordinate share for, say road maintenance, then we do need to find a way to levy taxes that shift the cost to the user creating that cost.
(Which also makes a case for keeping taxes as local as possible, a small town may decide that the cost of maintaining public facilities for the only industrial business in town is worth spreading across its electorate rather than have the plant move if its unable to shoulder the cost of maintaining the facilities for itself.)
-
If the "wealthy," or commercial interests use an inordinate share for, say road maintenance, then we do need to find a way to levy taxes that shift the cost to the user creating that cost.
That's already in operation for the roads. Seeing as how a lot of our goods are moved by truck, the road use taxes/permits/fees/licenses have been shifted to trucking companies, but, ultimately the end user pays - that's us.
Now flying, a scheme by which we're all taxed per mile driven, as though we're not paying enough through gas taxes, licensing of driver and vehicle, and auto-insurance add-ons.
When's the last time y'all looked at your phone bill? We still have a landline and half of the $29 per month, local, is fees, taxes and surcharges, just to get a dial-tone in the house. The long-distance company's bill varies by calls made but the same fees, taxes and surcharges apply but as a percentage of the total of calls. We get a $25 credit there and most months, a few calls and the resulting f/t/s eat up the entire credit.
We pay a sales tax on propane, and now, a sales tax on the delivery charge as well.
We pay property taxes on home and vehicles and any licensed trailers -- and if you're using one, it needs to be licensed. If we make improvements to the house, what is determined as "significant improvement" is remodeling your bathroom/kitchen and not just replacing a floor, the county wants to know how much of it was "sweat equity" because it wants property taxes on your labor.
There isn't a blessed thing any of us do that a fee, tax, or permit from the government isn't required and I'm bloody tired of it.
We desperately need to rebuild our front porch and the prospect of dealing with the local and state governments' demands and permitting fees is going to drive me to *setting my hair on fire and putting it out with a shovel. (*H/T Luthien)
-
Most people in this country don't even understand what's entailed in a Value Added Tax ... or how disasterous it would be to our economy . It's just a quick step to the European Model .
-
If the "wealthy," or commercial interests use an inordinate share for, say road maintenance, then we do need to find a way to levy taxes that shift the cost to the user creating that cost.
That's already in operation for the roads. Seeing as how a lot of our goods are moved by truck, the road use taxes/permits/fees/licenses have been shifted to trucking companies, but, ultimately the end user pays - that's us.
Now flying, a scheme by which we're all taxed per mile driven, as though we're not paying enough through gas taxes, licensing of driver and vehicle, and auto-insurance add-ons.
When's the last time y'all looked at your phone bill? We still have a landline and half of the $29 per month, local, is fees, taxes and surcharges, just to get a dial-tone in the house. The long-distance company's bill varies by calls made but the same fees, taxes and surcharges apply but as a percentage of the total of calls. We get a $25 credit there and most months, a few calls and the resulting f/t/s eat up the entire credit.
We pay a sales tax on propane, and now, a sales tax on the delivery charge as well.
We pay property taxes on home and vehicles and any licensed trailers -- and if you're using one, it needs to be licensed. If we make improvements to the house, what is determined as "significant improvement" is remodeling your bathroom/kitchen and not just replacing a floor, the county wants to know how much of it was "sweat equity" because it wants property taxes on your labor.
There isn't a blessed thing any of us do that a fee, tax, or permit from the government isn't required and I'm bloody tired of it.
We desperately need to rebuild our front porch and the prospect of dealing with the local and state governments' demands and permitting fees is going to drive me to *setting my hair on fire and putting it out with a shovel. (*H/T Luthien)
Well said, Luthien!
You're right, of course, we already DO levy use based taxes on, well, goldurned near everyt'ing! My comment was made in the hope that someday we'll start afresh...and actually think it through this time.
/Okay, okay. I know. I picked the wrong millennium to stop being a drug addict...
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
Powerline, CO; sorry. I'll never quite forget her because of that one remark.
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
Powerline, CO; sorry. I'll never quite forget her because of that one remark.
The midget?
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
Powerline, CO; sorry. I'll never quite forget her because of that one remark.
The midget?
Dwarf, I think. But, yes.
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
Powerline, CO; sorry. I'll never quite forget her because of that one remark.
The midget?
Dwarf, I think. But, yes.
Munchkin.
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
Powerline, CO; sorry. I'll never quite forget her because of that one remark.
The midget?
Dwarf, I think. But, yes.
Were going PC now?? It's sauce then!!
-
Luthien, Luthien, ...Luthien?
Powerline, CO; sorry. I'll never quite forget her because of that one remark.
The midget?
Dwarf, I think. But, yes.
Were going PC now?? It's sauce then!!
It's not PC, ya pita. There's a physiological difference between a midget and a dwarf. If I was being PC, I'd have called her a "little person" as she insisted we all do back on PL.
And it's GRAVY! Put on yer apron!
-
If I was a dwarf, I'd want to be called a Munchkin. Munchkins are cute and jolly.
-
If I was a dwarf, I'd want to be called a Munchkin. Munchkins are cute and jolly.
Hell, I would be too if I lived downwind of huge opium poppy fields ...
-
Whatever it is can I toss it?
-
Whatever it is can I toss it?
Not in this country!
Or Fwance.
-
Whatever it is can I toss it?
Well, you almost could have here in Florida! (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-07/dwarfs-better-off-tossed-than-jobless-florida-republican-says.html) But unfortunately Florida Rep. Workman backed out at the last minute and pulled his bill.
-
Leftist busybodies are always putting the clamps down on people having a good time, joyless bastards! ::mooning::
-
Leftist busybodies are always putting the clamps down on people having a good time, joyless bastards! ::mooning::
::hysterical::