Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: National Consumers Tax ????

  1. #1
    Member Riven37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Town of Cheektowaga
    Posts
    5,147

    National Consumers Tax ????

    Who knows about this foolish idea G. W. Bush has come up with. Is he nuts ? Doesn't he understand the trouble NYS is having today. A National Consumers Tax added on your yearly income taxes or is it a tax we will pay on daily??? Who has the info on this...I missed most of it...fill me in please !!!!
    Riven37
    _________
    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    761
    When Greenspan talks, his suggestions are almost guaranteed to become a fact of life

    -------------------------------------------------
    Greenspan Touts Idea of a Consumption Tax
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050303/D88JI49G0.html

    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Thursday embraced the notion of overhauling the nation's tax system and said that some form of a consumption tax - such as a national sales tax - could spur greater economic growth.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    Sat March, 5 2005 @ 07:20 GMT
    "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan started pitching the idea of a flat federal sales tax this week. At some point, food, health and housing likely will be taxed. For the short term, Greenspan is recommending a gradual transition, with a "hybrid" approach that includes a federal sales tax plus federal income taxes."

    "The US government already overhauled corporate tax and accounting regulations, and according to critics, took the tax burden off corporations. "

    "We're talking more pork and more of the load on the shoulders of the new-age poor. Just like it used to be in the good old days before all those pesky revolutions. "

    "We're looking at federal consumption taxes plus income tax, no bankruptcy allowed, no class action protections, no health insurance, no cheap drugs, rapidly rising housing costs, no Social Security, cutbacks in everything decent, mandatory employment, and military enforcement of the new rules by NORTHCOM. "
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Here's his new idea

    Raise retirement age, Greenspan tells panel Mar. 16, 2005
    http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11148899.htm

    Alan Greenspan didn't support any specific legislation, but indicated that there may be little choice but to encourage older Americans to stay in the work force.
    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Tuesday to consider raising the retirement age to help fix Social Security's funding problems, and he made it clear that benefit cuts should be part of any solution.

  3. #3
    moonshine
    Guest
    The only way any new tax should be supported is if the 16th Amendment is repealed. Otherwise the fed will figure out a way to tax your income AND your purchases. Wars on "Terror" and other abstract wars have a way of extracting additional funds from taxpayers' wallets in the name of patriotism.

    The best solution I have heard to "fixing" social security (ponzi scheme) is the outright elimination of social security and giving all people over the age of 59 tax exempt status. No property taxes, no income tax, no sales tax, no taxes. Period.

    Also, consider the fact that all internet purchases within the US will be taxed if a fed sales tax is implemented. Online transactions will not be able to use that interstate traffic loophole to avoid taxation.

  4. #4
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    8,222
    This is a favorite for the "trickle down" economics crowd because it guarantees that the richer you are, the lower tax rate you pay. It shifts the tax burden off the richest people to the poorest because it "punishes" those who spend as oppose to those who save.

    For example, somebody who has an income of $ 12,000 a year would probably spend every cent of that and thus pay the full tax percent (let's say 5%) while somebody who has an income of $120,000 could save (not spend) a considerable amount. Spending only 80% of income would reduce the tax rate to 4%; spending only 50% of income would reduce the tax rate to 2.5%.

    Even if there was some kind of exemption for low income people, a national sales tax would raise the price of everything by whatever the tax rate was. Moreover, the more services and commodities exempted and the higher the income threshholds for exemptions, the higher the tax rate would have to be in order to raise the same amount of money.

    Of course, it's kinda hard to save much when you're an 80-year-old retiree living on Social Security and a small monthly pension. People like this generally don't pay any state or federal income tax (even in NYS), but they would get socked with the full national sales tax rate while a millionaire without lavish spending habits might pay an effective tax rate of less than 1%.

  5. #5
    Member Riven37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Town of Cheektowaga
    Posts
    5,147

    oh

    Originally posted by avet
    When Greenspan talks, his suggestions are almost guaranteed to become a fact of life

    -------------------------------------------------
    Greenspan Touts Idea of a Consumption Tax
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050303/D88JI49G0.html

    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Thursday embraced the notion of overhauling the nation's tax system and said that some form of a consumption tax - such as a national sales tax - could spur greater economic growth.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    Sat March, 5 2005 @ 07:20 GMT
    "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan started pitching the idea of a flat federal sales tax this week. At some point, food, health and housing likely will be taxed. For the short term, Greenspan is recommending a gradual transition, with a "hybrid" approach that includes a federal sales tax plus federal income taxes."

    "The US government already overhauled corporate tax and accounting regulations, and according to critics, took the tax burden off corporations. "

    "We're talking more pork and more of the load on the shoulders of the new-age poor. Just like it used to be in the good old days before all those pesky revolutions. "

    "We're looking at federal consumption taxes plus income tax, no bankruptcy allowed, no class action protections, no health insurance, no cheap drugs, rapidly rising housing costs, no Social Security, cutbacks in everything decent, mandatory employment, and military enforcement of the new rules by NORTHCOM. "
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    Here's his new idea

    Raise retirement age, Greenspan tells panel Mar. 16, 2005
    http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11148899.htm

    Alan Greenspan didn't support any specific legislation, but indicated that there may be little choice but to encourage older Americans to stay in the work force.
    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Tuesday to consider raising the retirement age to help fix Social Security's funding problems, and he made it clear that benefit cuts should be part of any solution.

    Oh, now I remember this falls under that idea of having a National Income Tax program about what, 10 years ago. So, this falls under this same political thought...yes, I remember about this now. Thanks dude or dudet
    Riven37
    _________
    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    moonshine
    Guest
    a national sales tax would raise the price of everything by whatever the tax rate was
    Actually, the models I've seen show no increase in cost of goods. The producer would have a lower cost struture because he would be exempt from taxation during the production process (won't pay sales tax for raw materials). In addition, the corporation would no longer pay the 35% corporate tax on it's profits. You can also subtract the costs of filing quartely tax returns. There would be a built-in incentive to expand your corporation (raise employment) as opposed to hide profits from taxation.

    The end result is that prices would probably be the same for consumer products even if the national tax was 20%.

    This is just a model. I'm not supporting it or rejecting it.

    If the cost of goods sold increased significantly (say 10%) a huge black market would open up. People like me, who do everything even marginally legal to not pay taxes, will become the new generation of bootleggers. Actually, if a national sales tax was implemented and the cost of goods rose substantially, I would probably become an overnight millionaire.

  7. #7
    Member Riven37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Town of Cheektowaga
    Posts
    5,147

    sure

    Originally posted by moonshine
    Actually, the models I've seen show no increase in cost of goods. The producer would have a lower cost struture because he would be exempt from taxation during the production process (won't pay sales tax for raw materials). In addition, the corporation would no longer pay the 35% corporate tax on it's profits. You can also subtract the costs of filing quartely tax returns. There would be a built-in incentive to expand your corporation (raise employment) as opposed to hide profits from taxation.

    The end result is that prices would probably be the same for consumer products even if the national tax was 20%.

    This is just a model. I'm not supporting it or rejecting it.

    If the cost of goods sold increased significantly (say 10%) a huge black market would open up. People like me, who do everything even marginally legal to not pay taxes, will become the new generation of bootleggers. Actually, if a national sales tax was implemented and the cost of goods rose substantially, I would probably become an overnight millionaire.


    Sure, that's ok, I understand the model.
    Riven37
    _________
    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    95
    Originally posted by Linda_D
    This is a favorite for the "trickle down" economics crowd because it guarantees that the richer you are, the lower tax rate you pay. It shifts the tax burden off the richest people to the poorest because it "punishes" those who spend as oppose to those who save.

    For example, somebody who has an income of $ 12,000 a year would probably spend every cent of that and thus pay the full tax percent (let's say 5%) while somebody who has an income of $120,000 could save (not spend) a considerable amount. Spending only 80% of income would reduce the tax rate to 4%; spending only 50% of income would reduce the tax rate to 2.5%.

    Even if there was some kind of exemption for low income people, a national sales tax would raise the price of everything by whatever the tax rate was. Moreover, the more services and commodities exempted and the higher the income threshholds for exemptions, the higher the tax rate would have to be in order to raise the same amount of money.

    Of course, it's kinda hard to save much when you're an 80-year-old retiree living on Social Security and a small monthly pension. People like this generally don't pay any state or federal income tax (even in NYS), but they would get socked with the full national sales tax rate while a millionaire without lavish spending habits might pay an effective tax rate of less than 1%.
    This doesn't take into account that along with a flat tax, a rebate program for necessities is in the works to go along with it. That means the people that make $12,000/yr and spend their entire income will see almost all of that tax money come back to them, where as the rich will get no such refund on their non-necessities purchases.

    I really have no problem with a flat tax scheme as long as it is implemented properly, as in no taxes on necessities of life.

    That would ensure those rich people you all seem to hate still get to pay more taxes than everyone else.

  9. #9
    moadib
    Guest

    Actually a National Sales Tax isnt a bad idea

    Actually a National Sales Tax isnt a bad idea if it is used to finance some costs that lower the costs for employers thats why there is a VAT (Sales ) Tax in Canada and Europe.

    BECAUSE OF NAFTA AND WORLD TRADE TREATIES....COUNTRIES CANT USE TARRIFF OR IMPORT/EXPORT DUTIES ON FREE TRADE COUNTRIES....SO HOW HAVE THEY REPLACED IT....

    They used the sales tax to lower payroll taxes and employee benefits that employers offer so in the US it could be used to
    1) lower the employee and employer FICA Tax
    2) lower health & dental insurance
    3) pay for or lower pensions or 401k contributions that employees contribute

    as well as lowering our dependence on income taxes.

    We cannot tax foreign made goods being brought into this country but through sales tax, we can tax foreign goods equally with domestic made goods and remove the dis-incentive to create and keep jobs in the USA.

    SORRY BUT I AGREE WITH FORBES, GREENSPAN AND BUSH ON THIS ONE. WE SHOULD BE TAXING CONSUMPTION RATHER THAN INVESTMENT.

    This is one instance where simplifying the income tax code and reducing payroll taxes could lower the costs to employers and remove some of the dis-incentive to creating jobs in the USA.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •