Progressives take the lead on a sales tax

[JohnnySavage]

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Sen. Ben Cardin is scheduled to talk about his progressive consumption tax proposal.

The Maryland Democrat is discussing the proposal Monday with Maryland business leaders in Annapolis at the Maryland Chamber of Commerce.

Cardin’s proposal would eliminate federal income taxes for most people in the country. It also would reduce the corporate income tax rate. Instead, Cardin is proposing taxing the purchase of goods and services.

The senator says a progressive consumption tax would improve the country’s international competitiveness by putting American-based businesses on a level playing field with foreign businesses.

http://wtop.com/politics/2015/02/sen-cardin-discuss-consumption-tax-proposal/

 

[NeverEndingMe]

giving those like you, or anyone in government more money is like giving a meth head free drugs.

government doesn't need more money, government needs to spend less

its just that simple but you obama people ... after years of slavery are well ... stupid

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't need any insurance, so there's no need for you to talk to me.

 

[1sickbastard]

Given that the US is a consumption based economy, the unintended consequences of a consumption tax may not be all that hot.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I would end up paying a lot more under some kind of sales tax. But the current system is a mess and I'd bite the bullet if a new system was simple, transparent and fair.

 

[1sickbastard]

I would end up paying a lot more under some kind of sales tax. But the current system is a mess and I'd bite the bullet if a new system was simple, transparent and fair.

A few years back I read something about replacing the income tax (which works pretty good in an industrial-based economy) with a assets tax. I think the idea was that those with assets under $US250k would be untaxed, above that the rate would start at 1% of assets raised incrementally to a top cap of 15% for those worth more than $US10million. It would also include the value of offshore assets. The caps for businesses and corporations would be set at different levels.

Never did see any economic models based on the idea. The intent was to make sure capital was being cycled through the economy at a faster rate and to encourage consumption (which isn't a bad thing for a consumer economy).

Interesting idea though.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A few years back I read something about replacing the income tax (which works pretty good in an industrial-based economy) with a assets tax. I think the idea was that those with assets under $US250k would be untaxed, above that the rate would start at 1% of assets raised incrementally to a top cap of 15% for those worth more than $US10million. It would also include the value of offshore assets. The caps for businesses and corporations would be set at different levels.

Never did see any economic models based on the idea. The intent was to make sure capital was being cycled through the economy at a faster rate and to encourage consumption (which isn't a bad thing for a consumer economy).

Interesting idea though.

When the income tax came along in 1913 all the pols swore the tax would never touch working stiffs, but by 1920 the bottom slobs paid most of the tax.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I would end up paying a lot more under some kind of sales tax. But the current system is a mess and I'd bite the bullet if a new system was simple, transparent and fair.

so you are insane or stupid?

why would you give 'them' more money?

again, like giving SeanH free booze & Crack.

 

[1sickbastard]

When the income tax came along in 1913 all the pols swore the tax would never touch working stiffs, but by 1920 the bottom slobs paid most of the tax.

The first SCOTUS ruling, supposedly, declared income only as income on investments, and that wages were a straight trade of labor for money. I'm not a legal scholar and I've never tried to look up any cases which would either confirm or falsify that assertion.

 

[cjh]

How does a progressive consumption tax work?

 

[RobDownSouth]

How does a progressive consumption tax work?

It doesn't.

A consumption tax is one of the most regressive taxes out there.

It adversely impacts the poor to the benefit of the rich.

I've shown AJ time and time again that consumption tax vs income tax is pretty fair and linear up to an income of $150k a year, but after the $150K level it skews wildly in favor of the rich.

When you couple that to a feeble estate tax, it's a recipe for a permanent wealth class disaster in the USA.

And folks don't realize that a consumption tax would have to be levied on such previously sacrosanct items such as rent and hospital bills in order to work.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It doesn't.

A consumption tax is one of the most regressive taxes out there.

It adversely impacts the poor to the benefit of the rich.

I've shown AJ time and time again that consumption tax vs income tax is pretty fair and linear up to an income of $150k a year, but after the $150K level it skews wildly in favor of the rich.

When you couple that to a feeble estate tax, it's a recipe for a permanent wealth class disaster in the USA.

And folks don't realize that a consumption tax would have to be levied on such previously sacrosanct items such as rent and hospital bills in order to work.

Your arguments against it fly in the face of the fact that most states have a sales tax that seems workable.

I am a good example in favor of a sales tax. I have a very comfortable "income" and if I add in all the income, sales and property tax I am, on paper, supposed to pay, my marginal rate would be over 50%.

Because of the gymnastics of the tax code though, my effective rate is about 15% (including my state sales tax of 6%)

 

[NeverEndingMe]

some day you ass-monkey's will wake up to the fact that 'govnet' wastes money



like allowing Bill Clinton to manage a whore house

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your arguments against it fly in the face of the fact that most states have a sales tax that seems workable.

I am a good example in favor of a sales tax. I have a very comfortable "income" and if I add in all the income, sales and property tax I am, on paper, supposed to pay, my marginal rate would be over 50%.

Because of the gymnastics of the tax code though, my effective rate is about 15% (including my state sales tax of 6%)

Well, "workable" is a rather slippery slope, imho.

Sales taxes do exist, and people seem to tolerate them at 6 or 7 percent.

Firespin did an analysis once and found that the replacement cost of an income tax with a national sales tax would result in a combined sales tax rate of about 48% - with the national sales tax of 41%.

That's a powerful incentive to look for ways to game the system.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The devil is always in the details, but an order of magnitude analysis would be the GDP to Federal budget.

17 trillion GDP to fund a 3 Trillion budget.

I know lots of stuff go into the GDP that wouldn't be taxable; but that's the starting point.

 

[Wrong Element]

How does a progressive consumption tax work?

It would have to involve cutting checks to people on a massive scale. Another reason why so many politicians favor it -- they think it's a way of fooling people into thinking they are getting a gift rather than "paying taxes."

There may be places where this could be workable. But a country that already tolerates Gilded Age levels of income inequality probably isn't one of them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The first SCOTUS ruling, supposedly, declared income only as income on investments, and that wages were a straight trade of labor for money. I'm not a legal scholar and I've never tried to look up any cases which would either confirm or falsify that assertion.

Back in 1907 JP Morgan and friends brewed up a depression with stock swindles. They went to Teddy Roosevelt for bailouts, to which Teddy replied FUCK YOU, FIX YOUR OWN FUCKING MESS. They did. Their solution was the Federal Reserve/IRS Amendment to penalize Wall Street stock swindlers with income taxes to pay for several new federal watchdog agencies. But by 1920 the IRS was squeezing regular folks, welcoming the 20s stock abuses, and harassing bootleggers.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

we have to remember, we have government so that stupid people can have jobs too

 

[someoneyouknow]

giving those like you, or anyone in government more money is like giving a meth head free drugs.

government doesn't need more money, government needs to spend less

its just that simple but you obama people ... after years of slavery are well ... stupid

Exactly. Because when Bush was in office he was vetoing spending bills left and right. Nor did he attempt to hide the cost of the Iraq invasion through numerous supplemental requests.

Hell, he was such a financial genius he gave Halliburton, the Vice President's former employer, a multi-billion dollar no bid contract.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It doesn't.

A consumption tax is one of the most regressive taxes out there.

It adversely impacts the poor to the benefit of the rich.

I've shown AJ time and time again that consumption tax vs income tax is pretty fair and linear up to an income of $150k a year, but after the $150K level it skews wildly in favor of the rich.

When you couple that to a feeble estate tax, it's a recipe for a permanent wealth class disaster in the USA.

And folks don't realize that a consumption tax would have to be levied on such previously sacrosanct items such as rent and hospital bills in order to work.

I don't usually agree with you, but I do this time. Depending on what is taxable and what is not, a sales tax can be the most regressive tax imaginable. Everybody has to eat and wear clothing and everybody needs fuel and, if things like these are not excluded from sales taxes, it means everybody, even a family well below the poverty level, has to shell out, in taxes, the same percentage of their total expenditures.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't usually agree with you, but I do this time. Depending on what is taxable and what is not, a sales tax can be the most regressive tax imaginable. Everybody has to eat and wear clothing and everybody needs fuel and, if things like these are not excluded from sales taxes, it means everybody, even a family well below the poverty level, has to shell out, in taxes, the same percentage of their total expenditures.

About three years ago, we had a shitfest that lasted about three months, debating the so-called "fair tax". Firespin was the lead guy for the forces of good, AJ of course represented the dark side.

It's astonishing that the rate has to be so high to be "revenue neutral" (i.e. replaces current income tax levies). It's at least 33% in the "best case" scenario (which is actually the "worst case" scenario for consumers, as rent, hospital bills, home sales, etc would all be surcharged 33%).

Exempting political sacred cows like rent and such would require a sales tax rate of somewhere between 41 percent and 53 percent, as I recall.

That simply won't happen.

I think the prudent thing to do would be to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates.

 

[Disgustipated]

About three years ago, we had a shitfest that lasted about three months, debating the so-called "fair tax". Firespin was the lead guy for the forces of good, AJ of course represented the dark side.

It's astonishing that the rate has to be so high to be "revenue neutral" (i.e. replaces current income tax levies). It's at least 33% in the "best case" scenario (which is actually the "worst case" scenario for consumers, as rent, hospital bills, home sales, etc would all be surcharged 33%).

Exempting political sacred cows like rent and such would require a sales tax rate of somewhere between 41 percent and 53 percent, as I recall.

That simply won't happen.

I think the prudent thing to do would be to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates.

I miss firespin. A conservative that was reasonable.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't usually agree with you, but I do this time. Depending on what is taxable and what is not, a sales tax can be the most regressive tax imaginable. Everybody has to eat and wear clothing and everybody needs fuel and, if things like these are not excluded from sales taxes, it means everybody, even a family well below the poverty level, has to shell out, in taxes, the same percentage of their total expenditures.

You clowns never speak of cutting spending. Mr. and Missus Obama spent 5 million for a weekend getaway the other day. And they didn't travel together. The trip to Maui cost 10s of millions. But not a peep from you libs.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You clowns never speak of cutting spending. Mr. and Missus Obama spent 5 million for a weekend getaway the other day. And they didn't travel together. The trip to Maui cost 10s of millions. But not a peep from you libs.

Meanwhile, back in the reality-based world, everyone here talks about cutting spending all the time.

The problem is, neither of our sides can agree on exactly WHAT to cut. My side wants to downsize the percentage of the budget going to the military and your side wants to force grandma to eat cat food.

Since neither side has the votes to enact their budget priorities, we're stuck with the budget we have now.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't usually agree with you, but I do this time. Depending on what is taxable and what is not, a sales tax can be the most regressive tax imaginable. Everybody has to eat and wear clothing and everybody needs fuel and, if things like these are not excluded from sales taxes, it means everybody, even a family well below the poverty level, has to shell out, in taxes, the same percentage of their total expenditures.

Ummm... fuel is already subject to a sales tax.