(07-17-2018 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually like the concept. It was the basis for Milton Friedman's negative income tax and the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. Give $X, no questions asked, to everyone. Keep it at a subsistence level, so to do better the recipients have to work, and everybody gets it--from the homeless person sleeping under the bridge to Bill and Melinda Gates. Get rid of all the focused and "means tested" programs, or farm them out to the states on a voluntary basis. Do that plus Bismarck universal private health care, and pay for it with a consumption tax, that also gives you enough to balance the budget and lower income taxes to world-class levels. If you do Bismarck, that takes the Medicaid funding burden off the states, and that gives them enough money to get their financial houses in order and also take on whatever part of the old welfare plantation they want.
As far as cost, France does Bismarck for less government spending per capita than we spend per capita NOT to provide universal care. And once you get rid of all the overpriced gatekeepers that are not needed to run a welfare system that the IRS can do on computers, you'd be surprised how much we could actually pay out in benefits.

NO.
We DO. NOT. WANT. a consumption tax AND an income tax. You get one or the other. You don't get both.

OK, you can do one or the other. The problem is that if you only do one, you end up with rates that have to be higher than in most other countries, and that chases away investment, meaning growth and jobs. If you do both, you can set both way lower than world standard. That means that if you are looking to invest here or there, whichever tax concerns you most, the winner is here. If the world standard for both is around 25% each, and we can do it for 15% each, then we will attract shiploads of investment and business growth and middle class jobs. If we do either one at 30%, then we are going to lose some somewhere.

And when our consumer base can't buy anything because they are paying an income tax and the consumption tax jacks the prices on everything up how is that going to effect our economy?

Let’s say you have a 15% flat corporate tax, a 15% consumption tax, 15% to social security (7.5% employer, 7.5% employee, like now), and NO personal income tax. That raises enough revenues to do all that I’ve proposed. I’ve run the numbers. How does that create the problem you suggest?

(07-17-2018 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually like the concept. It was the basis for Milton Friedman's negative income tax and the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. Give $X, no questions asked, to everyone. Keep it at a subsistence level, so to do better the recipients have to work, and everybody gets it--from the homeless person sleeping under the bridge to Bill and Melinda Gates. Get rid of all the focused and "means tested" programs, or farm them out to the states on a voluntary basis. Do that plus Bismarck universal private health care, and pay for it with a consumption tax, that also gives you enough to balance the budget and lower income taxes to world-class levels. If you do Bismarck, that takes the Medicaid funding burden off the states, and that gives them enough money to get their financial houses in order and also take on whatever part of the old welfare plantation they want.
As far as cost, France does Bismarck for less government spending per capita than we spend per capita NOT to provide universal care. And once you get rid of all the overpriced gatekeepers that are not needed to run a welfare system that the IRS can do on computers, you'd be surprised how much we could actually pay out in benefits.

NO.
We DO. NOT. WANT. a consumption tax AND an income tax. You get one or the other. You don't get both.

OK, you can do one or the other. The problem is that if you only do one, you end up with rates that have to be higher than in most other countries, and that chases away investment, meaning growth and jobs. If you do both, you can set both way lower than world standard. That means that if you are looking to invest here or there, whichever tax concerns you most, the winner is here. If the world standard for both is around 25% each, and we can do it for 15% each, then we will attract shiploads of investment and business growth and middle class jobs. If we do either one at 30%, then we are going to lose some somewhere.

And when our consumer base can't buy anything because they are paying an income tax and the consumption tax jacks the prices on everything up how is that going to effect our economy?

Let’s say you have a 15% flat corporate tax, a 15% consumption tax, 15% to social security (7.5% employer, 7.5% employee, like now), and NO personal income tax. That raises enough revenues to do all that I’ve proposed. I’ve run the numbers. How does that create the problem you suggest?

The way the system is set up, that would be a tax increase for most Americans which makes it politically difficult

(07-17-2018 06:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  NO.
We DO. NOT. WANT. a consumption tax AND an income tax. You get one or the other. You don't get both.

OK, you can do one or the other. The problem is that if you only do one, you end up with rates that have to be higher than in most other countries, and that chases away investment, meaning growth and jobs. If you do both, you can set both way lower than world standard. That means that if you are looking to invest here or there, whichever tax concerns you most, the winner is here. If the world standard for both is around 25% each, and we can do it for 15% each, then we will attract shiploads of investment and business growth and middle class jobs. If we do either one at 30%, then we are going to lose some somewhere.

And when our consumer base can't buy anything because they are paying an income tax and the consumption tax jacks the prices on everything up how is that going to effect our economy?

Let’s say you have a 15% flat corporate tax, a 15% consumption tax, 15% to social security (7.5% employer, 7.5% employee, like now), and NO personal income tax. That raises enough revenues to do all that I’ve proposed. I’ve run the numbers. How does that create the problem you suggest?

The way the system is set up, that would be a tax increase for most Americans which makes it politically difficult

But if you do the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, you take care of those people. I’ve run some simulations using this system compared to our current one. People with zero income are worse off. Everyone from $15,000 to $55,000 is better off, and same for the middle class.

just fk'n NO.....nowhere close to yes.....

how about keep creating jobs and driving the economy upward and onward....

and if you fail, you fail in the current system of taxation.......

now if you want to talk about consumption taxation.....then I'm all ears......

no fk'n way this solves any problems the urban centers already have......it's a pittance in that realm....

(07-17-2018 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually like the concept. It was the basis for Milton Friedman's negative income tax and the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. Give $X, no questions asked, to everyone. Keep it at a subsistence level, so to do better the recipients have to work, and everybody gets it--from the homeless person sleeping under the bridge to Bill and Melinda Gates. Get rid of all the focused and "means tested" programs, or farm them out to the states on a voluntary basis. Do that plus Bismarck universal private health care, and pay for it with a consumption tax, that also gives you enough to balance the budget and lower income taxes to world-class levels. If you do Bismarck, that takes the Medicaid funding burden off the states, and that gives them enough money to get their financial houses in order and also take on whatever part of the old welfare plantation they want.
As far as cost, France does Bismarck for less government spending per capita than we spend per capita NOT to provide universal care. And once you get rid of all the overpriced gatekeepers that are not needed to run a welfare system that the IRS can do on computers, you'd be surprised how much we could actually pay out in benefits.

NO.
We DO. NOT. WANT. a consumption tax AND an income tax. You get one or the other. You don't get both.

OK, you can do one or the other. The problem is that if you only do one, you end up with rates that have to be higher than in most other countries, and that chases away investment, meaning growth and jobs. If you do both, you can set both way lower than world standard. That means that if you are looking to invest here or there, whichever tax concerns you most, the winner is here. If the world standard for both is around 25% each, and we can do it for 15% each, then we will attract shiploads of investment and business growth and middle class jobs. If we do either one at 30%, then we are going to lose some somewhere.

And when our consumer base can't buy anything because they are paying an income tax and the consumption tax jacks the prices on everything up how is that going to effect our economy?

Let’s say you have a 15% flat corporate tax, a 15% consumption tax, 15% to social security (7.5% employer, 7.5% employee, like now), and NO personal income tax. That raises enough revenues to do all that I’ve proposed. I’ve run the numbers. How does that create the problem you suggest?

A corporate tax doesn't affect me because I'm not a corporation. You can reduce taxes all you want, it isn't going to drive prices on products down.

A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

I thought that I was already paying a consumption tax when I buy something. What's the diff?

AS long as the state covers the cost that uses this method, so be it.

(07-17-2018 07:44 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I thought that I was already paying a consumption tax when I buy something. What's the diff?

Ever been to Sams or Costco and had a guy (or gal) in front of you use their tax ID# to not pay sales tax? That's because they are buying that stuff to resell on a retail level. In a consumption tax, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, that guy or gal would have to pay sales tax when they by the stuff and then charge you sales tax again when they sell it to you. I mean, MAYBE what I am talking about is actually a VAT (value-added tax), but if it is, then what Owl is talking about here is just a national sales tax on top of the already 9.25% sales tax I already pay. No thanks.

(07-17-2018 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

A corporate tax absolutely affects you. Corporations pass taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Taxes are calculated as another expense to a corporation.

(07-17-2018 10:32 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

A corporate tax absolutely affects you. Corporations pass taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Taxes are calculated as another expense to a corporation.

He's from South Carolina, you have to spell it slow for him.

(07-17-2018 10:32 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

A corporate tax absolutely affects you. Corporations pass taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Taxes are calculated as another expense to a corporation.

How much have prices gone down since the last tax reform?

THEY. AREN'T. GOING. TO. LOWER. PRICES. IF. YOU. CUT. CORPORATE. TAXES.

All that's going to happen is the effective price of goods is going to go up because of your magic bean consumption tax.

(07-17-2018 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  A corporate tax doesn't affect me because I'm not a corporation. You can reduce taxes all you want, it isn't going to drive prices on products down.
A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

A corporate tax does affect you long term, if not short term. Maybe they don't lower their price. Probably because they weren't paying US taxes on it in the first place, because they were making it in Poland or Slovenia or the Czech Republic and paying taxes on the profits there at 19% instead of US taxes at 39%. With the latest tax law, when they figure out where to build their next plant, they will compare those Polish or Slovenian or Czech taxes to a US rate of 22% plus state taxes (average ~5%). That has narrowed the gap to a point where other factors (convenience, ease of transferring profits) point toward the US. That means more jobs for more Americans. Maybe that effect doesn't show up for 10 years, and maybe it's pretty subtle (after all, there are a bunch of other factors, in not in every case will the decision be close enough for taxes to make the difference). But it will happen. And if it means more middle class jobs for Americans (and ultimately it will) then you benefit, indirectly if not directly. If some manufacturer builds a new plant in your county, and that puts 1,000 people to work at good-paying jobs, that helps you. Maybe not so much if you are retired (and I think you've said that you are), but if nothing else, when you were working and needed that new fire truck, it would certainly have helped to have more tax dollars to pay for it. And ask anyone in the private sector what is the effect of 1,000 new jobs in their target market area.

(07-18-2018 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  A corporate tax doesn't affect me because I'm not a corporation. You can reduce taxes all you want, it isn't going to drive prices on products down.
A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

A corporate tax does affect you long term, if not short term. Maybe they don't lower their price. Probably because they weren't paying US taxes on it in the first place, because they were making it in Poland or Slovenia or the Czech Republic and paying taxes on the profits there at 19% instead of US taxes at 39%. With the latest tax law, when they figure out where to build their next plant, they will compare those Polish or Slovenian or Czech taxes to a US rate of 22% plus state taxes (average ~5%). That has narrowed the gap to a point where other factors (convenience, ease of transferring profits) point toward the US. That means more jobs for more Americans. Maybe that effect doesn't show up for 10 years, and maybe it's pretty subtle (after all, there are a bunch of other factors, in not in every case will the decision be close enough for taxes to make the difference). But it will happen. And if it means more middle class jobs for Americans (and ultimately it will) then you benefit, indirectly if not directly. If some manufacturer builds a new plant in your county, and that puts 1,000 people to work at good-paying jobs, that helps you. Maybe not so much if you are retired (and I think you've said that you are), but if nothing else, when you were working and needed that new fire truck, it would certainly have helped to have more tax dollars to pay for it. And ask anyone in the private sector what is the effect of 1,000 new jobs in their target market area.

It's easy to tell folks that have never had an economics class. Unfortunately, LOTS of people have not had a econ class.

(07-18-2018 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 07:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  A corporate tax doesn't affect me because I'm not a corporation. You can reduce taxes all you want, it isn't going to drive prices on products down.
A consumption tax does affect me. It drives me towards buying used rather than new because it's adding cost to a product I want to buy while not contributing anything to my bottom line.

A corporate tax does affect you long term, if not short term. Maybe they don't lower their price. Probably because they weren't paying US taxes on it in the first place, because they were making it in Poland or Slovenia or the Czech Republic and paying taxes on the profits there at 19% instead of US taxes at 39%. With the latest tax law, when they figure out where to build their next plant, they will compare those Polish or Slovenian or Czech taxes to a US rate of 22% plus state taxes (average ~5%). That has narrowed the gap to a point where other factors (convenience, ease of transferring profits) point toward the US. That means more jobs for more Americans. Maybe that effect doesn't show up for 10 years, and maybe it's pretty subtle (after all, there are a bunch of other factors, in not in every case will the decision be close enough for taxes to make the difference). But it will happen. And if it means more middle class jobs for Americans (and ultimately it will) then you benefit, indirectly if not directly. If some manufacturer builds a new plant in your county, and that puts 1,000 people to work at good-paying jobs, that helps you. Maybe not so much if you are retired (and I think you've said that you are), but if nothing else, when you were working and needed that new fire truck, it would certainly have helped to have more tax dollars to pay for it. And ask anyone in the private sector what is the effect of 1,000 new jobs in their target market area.

That's a lot of typing to say that I'll not really see any positive effect in my bank account, just more money going out to the government. Instead of them just stealing from me with each paycheck they'll be stealing from me with each paycheck AND every time I buy something. But it's OK....the worthless will get a check made up of my money just for breathing and you'll be happy because we'll be one step closer towards the same socialism that the Europeans you so obviously admire.

(07-17-2018 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:09 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I actually like the concept. It was the basis for Milton Friedman's negative income tax and the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. Give $X, no questions asked, to everyone. Keep it at a subsistence level, so to do better the recipients have to work, and everybody gets it--from the homeless person sleeping under the bridge to Bill and Melinda Gates. Get rid of all the focused and "means tested" programs, or farm them out to the states on a voluntary basis. Do that plus Bismarck universal private health care, and pay for it with a consumption tax, that also gives you enough to balance the budget and lower income taxes to world-class levels. If you do Bismarck, that takes the Medicaid funding burden off the states, and that gives them enough money to get their financial houses in order and also take on whatever part of the old welfare plantation they want.
As far as cost, France does Bismarck for less government spending per capita than we spend per capita NOT to provide universal care. And once you get rid of all the overpriced gatekeepers that are not needed to run a welfare system that the IRS can do on computers, you'd be surprised how much we could actually pay out in benefits.

NO.
We DO. NOT. WANT. a consumption tax AND an income tax. You get one or the other. You don't get both.

OK, you can do one or the other. The problem is that if you only do one, you end up with rates that have to be higher than in most other countries, and that chases away investment, meaning growth and jobs. If you do both, you can set both way lower than world standard. That means that if you are looking to invest here or there, whichever tax concerns you most, the winner is here. If the world standard for both is around 25% each, and we can do it for 15% each, then we will attract shiploads of investment and business growth and middle class jobs. If we do either one at 30%, then we are going to lose some somewhere.

Im for the approach of HR25. It first repeals that income tax before installing a consumption tax paradigm. I afraid (and so were Bortz/Lindner) that if you dont eliminate the income tax that at some point the fwads in Washington would just raise the income tax over and over if it remained. I believe if we focus on "spending" prudently...including our foolish military spending...that we could make it just fine on a consumption tax paradigm.

(07-17-2018 07:44 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I thought that I was already paying a consumption tax when I buy something. What's the diff?

Under a plan like HR25...Withholding would end. No longer could the government reach directly into your pocket each check. Taxes would be levied at that point of consumption on NEW goods and services.

(07-18-2018 09:36 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  That's a lot of typing to say that I'll not really see any positive effect in my bank account, just more money going out to the government. Instead of them just stealing from me with each paycheck they'll be stealing from me with each paycheck AND every time I buy something. But it's OK....the worthless will get a check made up of my money just for breathing and you'll be happy because we'll be one step closer towards the same socialism that the Europeans you so obviously admire.

Okay, here’s the deal. Government needs $X to run. They can get it any of several ways. Right now our government takes more from individual income taxes and corporate income taxes, and less from consumption taxes, that other countries. That encourages consumption and discourages investment. And what problem do we have? Our middle class is shrinking because jobs that pay a middle class wage are disappearing. Some due to automation, a few to cheap labor overseas, some to that tax structure. We can’t stop automation, nor can we pay starvation wages, nor would we want to. How do you solve the problem?

One way is to make $X get smaller. Our welfare system is a mess—we pay way too much for administrative overhead, we don’t take care of everybody who needs it, and we let welfare cheats game the system. For all the complaints about European socialism, in many ways Europe is less socialist than we are. They see welfare as a safety net, not a massive redistribution scheme. Everybody benefits, and everybody pays. We could actually do well to move in that direction.

Question here folks: has any country over the past 100 years or so experimented around with a consumption tax and if so, what were the results ?

(07-18-2018 12:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Question here folks: has any country over the past 100 years or so experimented around with a consumption tax and if so, what were the results ?

Every other major developed country has. And they all seem pretty happy with the results. Nobody to my knowledge has imposed one and then repealed it.

From the standpoint of trade and investment and growth and jobs, it makes a lot of sense. That's why they all do it.