I am against this, not because it’s not a good idea. But because DC will do this and keep the income tax. They always fuck up, no exceptions. The government can do nothing right, if you have that understanding all this lunacy makes more sense.
$24k =/= $80k... I am not losing 100% of my income by paying 30%. I'm losing 30% of my income. I would not be earning $160k if I didn't have to pay a 30% income tax.
It's a bad idea. Our economy revolves around the fragility of our products and the leisure/entertainment industry. What would happen? People would stop eating out and stop taking trips. They would stop upgrading their existing equipment (it's a good idea). Many of these companies employ a great deal of people. They'd need less people. Less people equals less taxes. The affluent which would be less effected cannot carry the entire economy. Real estate sales would plummet. Imagine trying to buy your first home when it costs 30% more. Localities would have to increase their property taxes.
How would you define a "rich society?" I would consider it to be a society that promotes savers vs consumers. Sure everyone could consume all the time and have no savings, but is that ideal? From an ecomonic perspective I could see an argument, but I dont think the individuals in that economy are doing very well, and that is the most important part. Its not sustainable.
I disagree with you on the dining out and trip taking. Personally, I would be inclined to do this more with the extra cash in my pocket. Also, I doubt that the amount of taxable goods (according to this new model) I would purchase in one month would cause me to pay an equal amout of the proposed tax instead of the former income tax. So in my case, I could theoretically be buying more goods and also having more money in my pocket.
Finally I think the lower income folks could benefit WAY more than you think. A family on the brink of not being able to pay their bills would LOVE a break on income tax. What about the fresh college grad scraping by trying to pay off debt, living at home? Folks that are already frugal would get a giant beeak IMO.
Property value and tax- not sure here. Dont have an educated opinion either way.
But it's a trade off for you. That trip now costs far more because of the shifted tax. Yes for those likely 50+, those that pay the majority/higher tax rates won't spend as much. It's why the advertisers like a younger demographic. People my age (50) aren't spending much on frivolity. We don't buy new phones, we keep things longer. We don't buy new clothes every season etc..
Those on the brink either spend to much of what they earn or they don't make a lot and thus don't pay much if any federal tax.
They would get a break right up until they leave the nest. Then they start buying things like a house which have become that much more expensive.
If they need to raise revenue. Tax all income for social security no cut off. Tax investment income above some number. For example 250k.
If we did change the tax system. I'd spend the next 5/8 years working then I'm out. I'll stop spending on trips and sock it all away then move to some tropical island where I don't pay those consumption taxes. Many others would do the same and we're the ones paying the majority of the current taxes.
For retirement- how great would it be to not have to pay capital gains on your portfolio, or not get taxed on dividends?
However, I think we have a fundamental disagreemnt/point of view conflict. Here is an example of what I mean.
State tax is excluded in this scenario since it would not change.
Say you want to buy something that in the current system costs $5000. Assuming a 30% income tax rate (pretty accurate for many Americans), that means you would have to earn $7142, to get $5000 after taxes.
In the scenario proposed, assuming a 20% national tax rate (17% is referenced in the article, rounding to 20% for round numbers), that item still is $5000, then add the 20% national tax (5000*.2= 1000) and you get $6300.
In the current system the item would cost you $7142 vs $6300.
I am against this, not because it’s not a good idea. But because DC will do this and keep the income tax. They always fuck up, no exceptions. The government can do nothing right, if you have that understanding all this lunacy makes more sense.
Europe has something like this with their VAT tax, and yeah...they kept the income tax as well.
Canada put in a national sales tax, the gst in the 90s at 5%. It was supposed to go away... it is still there
Exactly lol. No new taxes.
Flat tax and fair tax have been proposed for many years, as replacements for income and property taxes. Yes, key word is replace of course.
Corruption disguised as incompetence.
Canadian here! We have BOTH! But if you really think a future government won't bring back income tax once everyone is used to higher sales tax...?
This is the rub. Governments are known to 'por que no los dos?' all the time...
Makes complete since ergo Dead on Arrival. You can't socially engineer society w/o some good ole Income Tax Muh Fren...
the brilliant part is the money shift allows folks to stay where they are.
earn more and fuck the blue states the steal from them.
this is meant to hurt cali the most. i love it.
4D
Nah, the best would be tariffs. But yeah the income tax needs to go. If you doubt me
Just pretend you double your earnings each year over the next ten years to see your earnings potential.
Now do it with 30 taken away every year.
If you want to see the difference in retirement potential, do it over 20 years. It's shocking
Double? How? This doesn't make sense
you know 10 * 2 = 20? then double that and keep doing it for ten or twenty turns.
But taxes aren't eating up the same equivalent in income... Maybe 20% depending upon your income bracket?
How is 20% the equivalent of preventing a doubling every single year?
So put your income bracket. 30% is fair in many cases you also have state
What? This still doesn't make sense
80k *.3 = $24k
$24k =/= $80k... I am not losing 100% of my income by paying 30%. I'm losing 30% of my income. I would not be earning $160k if I didn't have to pay a 30% income tax.
Lol you don't understand your losing way more than 100% specially if you extrapolate over 10 and 20 years. People's retirements literally vanish
Paging Neal Boortz.. He's been advocating for this for years.
Ugh... I was so close to coming and then you stopped... this is my wet dream...
It's a bad idea. Our economy revolves around the fragility of our products and the leisure/entertainment industry. What would happen? People would stop eating out and stop taking trips. They would stop upgrading their existing equipment (it's a good idea). Many of these companies employ a great deal of people. They'd need less people. Less people equals less taxes. The affluent which would be less effected cannot carry the entire economy. Real estate sales would plummet. Imagine trying to buy your first home when it costs 30% more. Localities would have to increase their property taxes.
Intersting argument. Mind if I press you on this?
How would you define a "rich society?" I would consider it to be a society that promotes savers vs consumers. Sure everyone could consume all the time and have no savings, but is that ideal? From an ecomonic perspective I could see an argument, but I dont think the individuals in that economy are doing very well, and that is the most important part. Its not sustainable.
I disagree with you on the dining out and trip taking. Personally, I would be inclined to do this more with the extra cash in my pocket. Also, I doubt that the amount of taxable goods (according to this new model) I would purchase in one month would cause me to pay an equal amout of the proposed tax instead of the former income tax. So in my case, I could theoretically be buying more goods and also having more money in my pocket.
Finally I think the lower income folks could benefit WAY more than you think. A family on the brink of not being able to pay their bills would LOVE a break on income tax. What about the fresh college grad scraping by trying to pay off debt, living at home? Folks that are already frugal would get a giant beeak IMO.
Property value and tax- not sure here. Dont have an educated opinion either way.
Im curious to hear your take.
But it's a trade off for you. That trip now costs far more because of the shifted tax. Yes for those likely 50+, those that pay the majority/higher tax rates won't spend as much. It's why the advertisers like a younger demographic. People my age (50) aren't spending much on frivolity. We don't buy new phones, we keep things longer. We don't buy new clothes every season etc..
Those on the brink either spend to much of what they earn or they don't make a lot and thus don't pay much if any federal tax.
They would get a break right up until they leave the nest. Then they start buying things like a house which have become that much more expensive.
If they need to raise revenue. Tax all income for social security no cut off. Tax investment income above some number. For example 250k.
If we did change the tax system. I'd spend the next 5/8 years working then I'm out. I'll stop spending on trips and sock it all away then move to some tropical island where I don't pay those consumption taxes. Many others would do the same and we're the ones paying the majority of the current taxes.
For retirement- how great would it be to not have to pay capital gains on your portfolio, or not get taxed on dividends?
However, I think we have a fundamental disagreemnt/point of view conflict. Here is an example of what I mean.
State tax is excluded in this scenario since it would not change.
Say you want to buy something that in the current system costs $5000. Assuming a 30% income tax rate (pretty accurate for many Americans), that means you would have to earn $7142, to get $5000 after taxes.
In the scenario proposed, assuming a 20% national tax rate (17% is referenced in the article, rounding to 20% for round numbers), that item still is $5000, then add the 20% national tax (5000*.2= 1000) and you get $6300.
In the current system the item would cost you $7142 vs $6300.
No. They would do more of that.