The cost of stuff.

[Ishmael]

AJ's thread on "Fair Share" is the starting point for this thread.

All of those taxes and regulations, at all levels, are passed right down the line. They impact the cost of food, lodging, clothes, utilities, and transportation. Essentially everything in your life that you might consider a necessity. The 'rich' pay no more for these items than the poor.

The problem is that the 47 percent that pay no direct taxes, be that in the form of income taxes, are the most unduly effected by these taxes and regulations. They are paying a far greater proportion of their incomes to obtain these goods and services than the so called wealthy. Which makes these taxes and regulations the most regressive of all measures that a government can take to secure revenue or in the attempt to 'level' the playing field.

The irony is that those that are in the 47% truly believe that it is the 'rich' that are getting soaked with all of this. The fact of the matter is is that they are not only NOT getting soaked, they're barely feeling the pinch. By cheering all of this government arbitrated 'fairness' on they are basically screwing over themselves. Taxes and regulations share a lot in common with civil engineering 101, that being that, "Shit flows downhill."

An excellent recent example is the 2% hike in payroll taxes. just who do you think felt that the most, the $120,000/yr. professional or the $13.25/hr. wage slave?

When regulation or taxes increase a concern like Walmart's cost of doing business who do you think is bearing the brunt of that increase, Walmart or the Walmart shopper? If you think Walmart is just eating that increased cost I'd be interested in exactly where you learned your economics.

When the taxes, or regulatory regulatory conformance costs, on the owner of a commercial property go up exactly who do you think is paying for that increased cost, the owner or the renter? The same principle applies to the food you buy or the utilities you use. Everything you buy in the form of goods and services are effected in exactly the same way. And it's the 47% that bear the brunt of all these increases, primarily because 47 is a much larger number than 1.

So every time you cheer on a new tax or regulation and you experience a discomforting feeling in the vicinity of your wallet and you are wondering exactly who's taking it in the ass.............go look in the mirror.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why are you guys so concerned about the end of the Payroll Tax Holiday?

It's not like you, Amicus and/or Vetteman have had a paycheck in the last 5-10 years.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

and you are wondering exactly who's taking it in the ass.............
Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

Ish, are you in favor of moving towards a user-pay/consumption taxation model?

 

[Ishmael]

Ish, are you in favor of moving towards a user-pay/consumption taxation model?

Absolutely, with pre-bates indexed to the poverty level.

I do not favor the model that uses exemptions for food, housing, etc. I've watched that model in various states over the the years and the exemption list starts looking like the deduction breakouts in the income tax code after a while. You start seeing shit like exemptions for pate' de foie gras to help promote the domestic goose industry.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

I think the challenge with consumption taxes is despite good intentions, you wind up being taxed by both methods anyway, because governments love taxes.

The highest overall rate of taxes in the world are in countries with consumption taxes.

But from a theoretical perspective, I agree with you.

 

[Ishmael]

I think the challenge with consumption taxes is despite good intentions, you wind up being taxed by both methods anyway, because governments love taxes.

The highest overall rate of taxes in the world are in countries with consumption taxes.

But from a theoretical perspective, I agree with you.

True enough, but there are a couple of other things happening there. Most of those countries have either an income tax or a VAT on top of the consumption tax. For this to work at all the 16th would have to be repealed and the contemplation of an amendment to prohibit VAT's should be considered.

The single outstanding feature of such a tax is it's transparency, regardless of the rate finally arrived at.

Of course the greatest obstacle are the politicians themselves. They would no longer be able to play shell games and engage in 'class/group warfare' with the revenue stream. They'd be stuck squabbling over the spending alone and where's the fun in that?

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

True enough, but there are a couple of other things happening there. Most of those countries have either an income tax or a VAT on top of the consumption tax. For this to work at all the 16th would have to be repealed and the contemplation of an amendment to prohibit VAT's should be considered.

The single outstanding feature of such a tax is it's transparency, regardless of the rate finally arrived at.

Of course the greatest obstacle are the politicians themselves. They would no longer be able to play shell games and engage in 'class/group warfare' with the revenue stream. They'd be stuck squabbling over the spending alone and where's the fun in that?

Ishmael

Exactly...which is why a flat tax (or titheing ??) probably stands a better chance of actually working in the USA.

 

[Ishmael]

Exactly...which is why a flat tax (or titheing ??) probably stands a better chance of actually working in the USA.

Well Lance, we tried that. Back in 1986 congress passed the "Tax Simplification Act" which was essentially a two tiered flat tax. I don't think it lasted that congressional session. The current 72,000+ pages of the existing tax code is built on that act.

About the only benefit I can see from such an act would be that the politicos could crow about "how they did something" while guaranteeing that they'd have another 30 years to fuck around with it before the public got fed up and then they could "do something" again. It's inherent to the nature of any tax based on income.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

I think the lost tax revenues created by online shopping and remote employment are making it harder to tax both stuff and income.

Booze, Food and Fuel are likely candidates for increased taxation because you pretty much have to buy them in your jurisdiction.

 

[mercury14]

AJ's thread on "Fair Share" is the starting point for this thread.

All of those taxes and regulations, at all levels, are passed right down the line. They impact the cost of food, lodging, clothes, utilities, and transportation. Essentially everything in your life that you might consider a necessity. The 'rich' pay no more for these items than the poor.

The problem is that the 47 percent that pay no direct taxes, be that in the form of income taxes, are the most unduly effected by these taxes and regulations. They are paying a far greater proportion of their incomes to obtain these goods and services than the so called wealthy. Which makes these taxes and regulations the most regressive of all measures that a government can take to secure revenue or in the attempt to 'level' the playing field.

The irony is that those that are in the 47% truly believe that it is the 'rich' that are getting soaked with all of this. The fact of the matter is is that they are not only NOT getting soaked, they're barely feeling the pinch. By cheering all of this government arbitrated 'fairness' on they are basically screwing over themselves. Taxes and regulations share a lot in common with civil engineering 101, that being that, "Shit flows downhill."

An excellent recent example is the 2% hike in payroll taxes. just who do you think felt that the most, the $120,000/yr. professional or the $13.25/hr. wage slave?

When regulation or taxes increase a concern like Walmart's cost of doing business who do you think is bearing the brunt of that increase, Walmart or the Walmart shopper? If you think Walmart is just eating that increased cost I'd be interested in exactly where you learned your economics.

When the taxes, or regulatory regulatory conformance costs, on the owner of a commercial property go up exactly who do you think is paying for that increased cost, the owner or the renter? The same principle applies to the food you buy or the utilities you use. Everything you buy in the form of goods and services are effected in exactly the same way. And it's the 47% that bear the brunt of all these increases, primarily because 47 is a much larger number than 1.

So every time you cheer on a new tax or regulation and you experience a discomforting feeling in the vicinity of your wallet and you are wondering exactly who's taking it in the ass.............go look in the mirror.

Ishmael

It's not a 2% hike in payroll taxes, it was a 2-year payroll tax cut of 2%. You start off sounding like you want an honest conversation then you pollute what you have to say with this kind of crap.

If you want to think about this honestly then you need to get more specific about what kind of regulations you're talking about. Some regulations even reduce costs. For example, the FDA makes sure that pharm companies aren't making false claims, therefore patients don't waste money on drugs that aren't proven to work (or are proven not to work).

Lastly, if what you say is true that all taxes are passed on, then we should reduce all corporate taxes and fees to zero, no?

 

[Lancecastor]

The U.S. Bureau of the Census estimated there were $4.1 trillion in retail and wholesale transactions over the Internet in 2010, amounting to 16.1% of all U.S. shipments and sales.

Estimates put lost tax revenue at approximately $11.4 billion in 2012. California alone was projected to lose $1.9 billion; Texas, $870.4 million; and New York, $865.5 million.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/09/11/10-surprising-facts-about-online-sales-taxes/

 

[Ishmael]

It's not a 2% hike in payroll taxes, it was a 2-year payroll tax cut of 2%. You start off sounding like you want an honest conversation then you pollute what you have to say with this kind of crap.

If you want to think about this honestly then you need to get more specific about what kind of regulations you're talking about. Some regulations even reduce costs. For example, the FDA makes sure that pharm companies aren't making false claims, therefore patients don't waste money on drugs that aren't proven to work (or are proven not to work).

Lastly, if what you say is true that all taxes are passed on, then we should reduce all corporate taxes and fees to zero, no?

If you are paying more in taxes today than you were yesterday then it's a tax hike no matter how much mental masturbation you want to engage in.

Exactly, only individuals pay taxes.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

Online transactioning offers huge cost savings to corporations and consumers, so over time, it will go from 16% of all sales to 25, to 40...and at some point the corporations will probably be the ones who determine "stuff" based tax policy.

Google, eBay/PayPal, Amazon and a few others will probably wind up being the de facto tax authorities.

Nobody else will have the global ability to collect and distribute money from transactions....certainly not any one country's government.

 

[mercury14]

If you are paying more in taxes today than you were yesterday then it's a tax hike no matter how much mental masturbation you want to engage in.

Measuring relative to two months ago versus two years ago is arbitrary and intentionally myopic on your part. You simply cannot ignore the fact that we're talking about a net tax cut compared to the baseline. Not if you want to have an honest discussion anyway.

Exactly, only individuals pay taxes.

Ishmael

Okay so let's run with this, setting the corporate income tax to 0%. According to the FactCheck.org, the corporate income tax makes up about 14.4% of government receipts of ~3.6 trillion, so that's $518 billion per year. And that doesn't include corporate fees, so perhaps $550 billion, or $5.55 trillion over ten years plus interest.

In a time of $1 trillion deficits, how do you plan to compensate for that loss of revenue?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Online transactioning offers huge cost savings to corporations and consumers, so over time, it will go from 16% of all sales to 25, to 40...and at some point the corporations will probably be the ones who determine "stuff" based tax policy.

Google, eBay/PayPal, Amazon and a few others will probably wind up being the de facto tax authorities.

Nobody else will have the global ability to collect and distribute money from transactions....certainly not any one country's government.

Virginia just introduced legislation (sales taxes are generally State issues) to collect taxes on products sold on the internet that are shipped to Virginia residents.

Most states have laws that require a resident to pay state sales taxes even on goods purchased in another state. Although collection is difficult and realistically, nobody does it. So technically, if you buy something on the internet, you are probably supposed to pay state sales tax already.

Further, some states already collect taxes from internet sales if the product is shipped to their residents.

 

[Lancecastor]

Virginia just introduced legislation (sales taxes are generally State issues) to collect taxes on products sold on the internet that are shipped to Virginia residents.

Most states have laws that require a resident to pay state sales taxes even on goods purchased in another state. Although collection is difficult and realistically, nobody does it. So technically, if you buy something on the internet, you are probably supposed to pay state sales tax already.

Further, some states already collect taxes from internet sales if the product is shipped to their residents.

Yes... and that's all very nice... but the fact is that internet taxation is far more complex to deal with from every angle.

And the transition will result in corporations having a greater role in taxation that they do now.

This power shift will change the ways and means in which governments are funded.

Which is why food and fuel are the two logical choices for massive tax increases.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yes... and that's all very nice... but the fact is that internet taxation is far more complex to deal with from every angle.

And the transition will result in corporations having a greater role in taxation that they do now.

This power shift will change the ways and means in which governments are funded.

Which is why food and fuel are the two logical choices for massive tax increases.

How is it more complex?

If I buy a book at my local Barnes & Noble, they charge me the price of the book plus 6% in sales tax ear-marked for the Comptroller of Maryland. That transaction is stored in the corporate computer and at the end of the quarter they write a check to the Comptroller of Maryland.

The same thing could happen for a BN internet order shipped to Maryland.

In fact, if you buy something from Amazon, and Amazon has a distribution center in your state, the state sales tax is added to the sale.

Retailers have always been responsible for collecting sales tax. That's nothing new and there is no shift from the government to corporations by collecting taxes from internet sales.

The bigger issue is that if a consumer has to pay sales tax AND shipping costs, internet sales will decrease because they won't be as competitive as going down to the local BN and buying the book.

 

[imalickin]

AJ's thread on "Fair Share" is the starting point for this thread.

All of those taxes and regulations, at all levels, are passed right down the line. They impact the cost of food, lodging, clothes, utilities, and transportation. Essentially everything in your life that you might consider a necessity. The 'rich' pay no more for these items than the poor.

The problem is that the 47 percent that pay no direct taxes, be that in the form of income taxes, are the most unduly effected by these taxes and regulations. They are paying a far greater proportion of their incomes to obtain these goods and services than the so called wealthy. Which makes these taxes and regulations the most regressive of all measures that a government can take to secure revenue or in the attempt to 'level' the playing field.

The irony is that those that are in the 47% truly believe that it is the 'rich' that are getting soaked with all of this. The fact of the matter is is that they are not only NOT getting soaked, they're barely feeling the pinch. By cheering all of this government arbitrated 'fairness' on they are basically screwing over themselves. Taxes and regulations share a lot in common with civil engineering 101, that being that, "Shit flows downhill."

An excellent recent example is the 2% hike in payroll taxes. just who do you think felt that the most, the $120,000/yr. professional or the $13.25/hr. wage slave?

When regulation or taxes increase a concern like Walmart's cost of doing business who do you think is bearing the brunt of that increase, Walmart or the Walmart shopper? If you think Walmart is just eating that increased cost I'd be interested in exactly where you learned your economics.

When the taxes, or regulatory regulatory conformance costs, on the owner of a commercial property go up exactly who do you think is paying for that increased cost, the owner or the renter? The same principle applies to the food you buy or the utilities you use. Everything you buy in the form of goods and services are effected in exactly the same way. And it's the 47% that bear the brunt of all these increases, primarily because 47 is a much larger number than 1.

So every time you cheer on a new tax or regulation and you experience a discomforting feeling in the vicinity of your wallet and you are wondering exactly who's taking it in the ass.............go look in the mirror.

Ishmael

The 47% don't worry about them taxes driving up the cost of their food, they has food stamps - free money from the government. So tax and regulate, Obama will raise their share of the free money to compensate their higher costs.

 

[Sean]

The government voted by that 47% insists on using 40% of our corn production for ethanol use, driving up the cost of the food they do manage to purchase.

Whereas you'd prefer they used it to exploit starving girls in the far east.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes... and that's all very nice... but the fact is that internet taxation is far more complex to deal with from every angle.

And the transition will result in corporations having a greater role in taxation that they do now.

This power shift will change the ways and means in which governments are funded.

Which is why food and fuel are the two logical choices for massive tax increases.

Actually it would be fairly straightforward to enforce on a national level. It is the various states that have, and will continue to have, problems.

Ishmael

 

[fgarvb1]

On line Places like Amazon will one day (probably sooner than we think) charge sales tax according to the ZIP code of the buyer.

Computers will sort it out and send the checks to the individual states or countries.

 

[Lancecastor]

Actually it would be fairly straightforward to enforce on a national level. It is the various states that have, and will continue to have, problems.

Ishmael

I suspect none of it is as easy as you suggest, otherwise it would already be done.

You have international companies selling internationally and 16% of US consumer purchases right now are part of that.

If I buy something from outside Canada online and it's under $200 and have it delivered by the USPS, it arrives without any taxes or duties being levied by anyone.

Same with goods under $200 entering the USA or crossing state lines.

All the sales tax disappears.

And it's growing in size every day.

It's a big piece of the tax funding equation and governments can't just reach out and grab it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you are paying more in taxes today than you were yesterday then it's a tax hike no matter how much mental masturbation you want to engage in.

Exactly, only individuals pay taxes.

Ishmael

When Coca Cola puts its products on sale for the weekend, do you consider it a "Price hike" when the sale ends?

Derp.