national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to
pay even less. :-)

On 09 Nov 2004 17:00:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or 30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich. A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about 8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax. If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary lengths to
pay even less. :-)

You've painted this picture before. But it can be modified, so that
it's not so dreary looking for those who would discard the idea out of
hand.

Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be
tax exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current
6%).

"Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic
vacations, etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be
used to offset the tax rate for other consumer goods.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:15:56 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be tax
exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current 6%).

"Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic vacations,
etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be used to offset
the tax rate for other consumer goods.

And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-(

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:14:48 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:15:56 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be tax
exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current 6%).

"Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic vacations,
etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be used to offset
the tax rate for other consumer goods.

And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-(

How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items
are a no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the
purchase price.

Dave

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:23:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-(

How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items are a
no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the purchase
price.

Come on, Dave, we are talking bureaucrats here. I can see 12,000 pages of
tax code on food alone. Is caviar a luxury or a necessity? Simple is
better when it comes to taxes.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:05:10 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:23:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-(

How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items are a
no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the purchase
price.

Come on, Dave, we are talking bureaucrats here. I can see 12,000 pages of
tax code on food alone. Is caviar a luxury or a necessity? Simple is
better when it comes to taxes.

It doesn't have to be that way. You can have a "sales tax" and still
keep it relatively simple so as to benefit those who need it most.

Dave

Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax used
in most of Europe?



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to
its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against
their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or
30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich.
A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on
consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have
about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about
8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay
a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up
spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax.
If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the
money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns
and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in
California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax
that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you
extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they
roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the
tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary
lengths to
pay even less. :-)

Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax used
in most of Europe?

Not much.

I prefer a flat tax, with no tax extracted from the first $30,000 or so of
income. For some, that would mean no tax paid on the money earned during the
first week of the year, and for others that would exempt all income. The
desperately poor should be absolutely untaxed- and maybe they will have enough
left over to save and invest and start getting slightly ahead.

For the rest of us, after the same $30,000 exemption everybody else gets, tax
income at a rate sufficient to balance the budget every year. Maybe 15, 20, or
25%. Those spendthift legislators would be more reluctant to pee away so much
money if it meant they had to immediately tell their constituents that taxes
were going up 2,3, or 4 percent to pay for the latest government program.

We would tax *all* income under the flat tax plan, with a streamlined formula
for measuring "net profit" (the source of most chicanery in the current tax
system).

I think that is a program many could live with, it is definitely better than
the crap we have today.

The problem with a flat tax paid to the IRS, is the large number of people
who avoid taxes by operating in an underground economy. I would love to see
either a sales tax or VAT system, that would not tax basic necessities, i.e.
food, medical, rent cost for reasonable housing. This way, the poor are not
unfairly taxed on basic necessities, but the tax on non necessities would be
paid by all. Since the public is supporting a change in our tax system,
hopefully, we will see a major overhaul of our current system soon.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax
used
in most of Europe?

Not much.

I prefer a flat tax, with no tax extracted from the first $30,000 or so of
income. For some, that would mean no tax paid on the money earned during
the
first week of the year, and for others that would exempt all income. The
desperately poor should be absolutely untaxed- and maybe they will have
enough
left over to save and invest and start getting slightly ahead.

For the rest of us, after the same $30,000 exemption everybody else gets,
tax
income at a rate sufficient to balance the budget every year. Maybe 15,
20, or
25%. Those spendthift legislators would be more reluctant to pee away so
much
money if it meant they had to immediately tell their constituents that
taxes
were going up 2,3, or 4 percent to pay for the latest government program.

We would tax *all* income under the flat tax plan, with a streamlined
formula
for measuring "net profit" (the source of most chicanery in the current
tax
system).

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to
its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against
their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or
30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich.
A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on
consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have
about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about
8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay
a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up
spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax.
If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the
money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns
and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in
California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax
that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you
extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they
roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the
tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary
lengths to
pay even less. :-)



And you get a tax credit for the first $20k if income. This rebates the tax
to the lower earner. I favor a flat income tax. With the same $20k
exemption. You realize Kerry and Therese only paid at a 12% rate last year?
I bet most of us middle income people paid at a much higher rate than that.
And the Poor paid no income tax, and even got a rebait (rebate) of taxes
they did not pay.