Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Small detail for you. Renters cover all of the things that homeowners do, plus some profit for the homeowners, AND renters insurance. Think that through.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Per-unit costs for apartments are quite a bit lower than per-unit costs for houses. Shared partitions mean heating and cooling costs are lower. Once home owners pay off the mortgage their living expenses are much lower than renting, but until then they pay more. The trade-off is that buyers end up with a substantial asset, and renters end up with nothing.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Per-unit costs for apartments are quite a bit lower than per-unit costs for houses. Shared partitions mean heating and cooling costs are lower. Once home owners pay off the mortgage their living expenses are much lower than renting, but until then they pay more. The trade-off is that buyers end up with a substantial asset, and renters end up with nothing.
I had a next door neighbor whose 3BR mortgage payment was lower than my rent. Many many homeowners have PITI mortgage payments lower than 1BR rents.
I paid off my landlord's mortgage and all I got was a - heck, I didn't even get a crummy shirt.
USA’s progressive income tax rates are actually much less progressive due the greater opportunities for wealthier tax payers to understate their incomes and additionally so much of their incomes are legally classified as subject to lesser than tax rates upon “ordinary” incomes.
In many cases higher income taxpayers are paying lesser rates than those earning incomes of much lesser annual amounts.
Rather than reported taxable incomes, consumer purchases are a more accurate indication of individual taxpayers and their dependents' net incomes in proportion to each other.
Although this is not true for commercial purchases, ordinary commercial expenditures are generally passed onto customers or final users.
I believe it that it’s imprudent to attempt replacing all federal taxes upon incomes with revenues based upon a sales tax in a single step. I also believe that it is politically unfeasible to pass and enact such a federal act.
I’m among the proponents for incrementally transferring portions of our federal tax revenues from taxes upon net incomes to a federal sales tax.
Each incremental step would simultaneously:
(1) Reduce all taxes upon “ordinary” individual lowest income bracket’s ordinary income tax rate by a flat Uniform flat percentage of taxable ordinary income (thus other brackets rates would all drop down by the same uniform percentage of ordinary taxable income. A uniform percentage reduction of the “ordinary” taxable income rate is not the same thing as a uniform percentage reduction of all tax rates. As incremental reductions of ordinary income tax rates continue, the advantageous of some favorable treatment of other than “ordinary” incomes will become less favorable or will be completely eliminated.
(2) Similarly reduction of ordinary corporate income rates will also be reduced but the flat uniform rate of reduction upon taxable ordinary corporate net incomes may not necessarily be equal to the reduction upon taxable ordinary individual’s incomes.
(3) Increase the federal sales tax.
(4) Some compensating legislative provision for persons that are not dependents of income tax payers and do not now pay federal taxes upon their incomes. It is possible to draft a sales tax to behave slightly more favorable to lower income families, but basically sales taxes are primarily flat rated taxes.
Other than some type of “negative income tax such as the tax credits for the working poor, the compensating provisions for the lowest income families and individuals cannot be incorporated within the taxing system itself.
The first incremental step should entirely eliminate all employees and employers contributions to FICA taxes on payrolls that are earmarked for programs with individuals’ and/or their family’s benefits not primarily related to the individual’s earnings; half of all other contributions should be eliminated.
Replacing any portion of the FICA payroll taxes with a sales tax would increase federal tax revenues, be economically advantageous to our nation and would be particularly advantageous to our working poor.
The FICA taxes upon payrolls are our most regressive federal taxes.
I believe that after one of the federal sales tax incremental increases, the tax rate will approach an unacceptable rate and further transformation of our major federal tax revenue sources will have to cease.
We will then have a federal sales tax that all enterprises and individuals will pay, and a remaining progressive income tax with a high starting income tax bracket that will only be paid by individuals and corporations of greater incomes.
If I’m incorrect, all federal taxes upon net incomes will be abolished.
Respectfully, Supposn
It looks like you have put a lot of thought into this and the fact that so many people here are against you means you're onto something IMO.
I would just like to add that while a national sales tax would be more detrimental to the poor and lower income members of society, that is what exemptions are for.
Under a national sales tax I would exempt everything needed to maintain life, schooling, and/or holding a job.
To name a few, food, water, medicine, medical and dental care, housing, clothes, schools and supplies, transportation to and from a job, uniforms for a job, training for a job. This is just what I could come up with in a few minutes.
A national sales tax also has the benefit of taxing the underground economy. Drug dealers and other criminals spend money too.
It looks like you have put a lot of thought into this and the fact that so many people here are against you means you're onto something IMO.
I would just like to add that while a national sales tax would be more detrimental to the poor and lower income members of society, that is what exemptions are for.
Under a national sales tax I would exempt everything needed to maintain life, schooling, and/or holding a job.
To name a few, food, water, medicine, medical and dental care, housing, clothes, schools and supplies, transportation to and from a job, uniforms for a job, training for a job. This is just what I could come up with in a few minutes.
A national sales tax also has the benefit of taxing the underground economy. Drug dealers and other criminals spend money too.
Right, people that smuggle drugs will never smuggle other merchandise....
What you came up with in a few minutes sounds like an arbitrary, and complex system, which again, has little to do with the proportion that one benefits from the existing state.
Instead of a long list of exclusions, some forms of luxury taxes are not the worst , but are still arbitrary and again have little to do with the derive the state provides.
I just don't get it. The value of a jar of pickles comes from the manufacture of it. The value of undeveloped property comes entirely from the state and its value would be zero without police and legal protection. There is absolutely no way to hide it, and "drug dealers would have to pay. Drug dealers also have to pay for licence plates which again is a fee easily collected since it allows for the "road service". When I apply for a passport they know exactly who to tax. Its a fee for a service.
Right, people that smuggle drugs will never smuggle other merchandise....
What you came up with in a few minutes sounds like an arbitrary, and complex system, which again, has little to do with the proportion that one benefits from the existing state.
Instead of a long list of exclusions, some forms of luxury taxes are not the worst , but are still arbitrary and again have little to do with the derive the state provides.
I just don't get it. The value of a jar of pickles comes from the manufacture of it. The value of undeveloped property comes entirely from the state and its value would be zero without police and legal protection. There is absolutely no way to hide it, and "drug dealers would have to pay. Drug dealers also have to pay for licence plates which again is a fee easily collected since it allows for the "road service". When I apply for a passport they know exactly who to tax. Its a fee for a service.
I don't think you have the faintest clue what I'm talking about. But, to highlight one aspect of an exemption clause such as food, all humans eat food. So, a person who makes $10,000 a year or $10,000,000 a year still benefits from the exemption. I don't know why you are talking about pickles.
It makes far more sense to exempt items at the point of sale, then to collect a tax, then later reimburse that tax to lower income people. Which is exactly what we have now with the earned income tax credit.
By exempting items we can eliminate the middle man.
Also, I didn't read all the replies, but another benefit of a national sales tax is we can close the IRS or at the minimum greatly reduce their staff. I would think 90% reduction of staff is possible. We can also close all the various state income tax offices too while we're at it.
USA’s progressive income tax rates are actually much less progressive due the greater opportunities for wealthier tax payers to understate their incomes...
Do you have evidence to back up that claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
... and additionally so much of their incomes are legally classified as subject to lesser than tax rates upon “ordinary” incomes.
In many cases higher income taxpayers are paying lesser rates than those earning incomes of much lesser annual amounts.
In spite of your attempt to disingenuously conflate the two, there's a very real difference between Earned Income and Unearned Income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Rather than reported taxable incomes, consumer purchases are a more accurate indication of individual taxpayers and their dependents' net incomes in proportion to each other.
No, consumer purchases are an indication of disposable income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
I believe it that it’s imprudent to attempt replacing all federal taxes upon incomes with revenues based upon a sales tax in a single step. I also believe that it is politically unfeasible to pass and enact such a federal act.
I’m among the proponents for incrementally transferring portions of our federal tax revenues from taxes upon net incomes to a federal sales tax.
Your highfalutin nonsensical approach leaves much to be desired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The first incremental step should entirely eliminate all employees and employers contributions to FICA taxes on payrolls that are earmarked for programs with individuals’ and/or their family’s benefits not primarily related to the individual’s earnings; half of all other contributions should be eliminated.
Why?
The FICA tax funds Social Security, which is separate and apart from the federal budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Replacing any portion of the FICA payroll taxes with a sales tax would increase federal tax revenues, be economically advantageous to our nation and would be particularly advantageous to our working poor.
The FICA taxes upon payrolls are our most regressive federal taxes.
You misunderstand the purpose and function of Social Security, and its associated payroll tax.
Furthermore you fail to understand that it will cost $1.5+ TRILLION annually to fund Social Security from about 2023 onward.
The current 6.2% (12.4% total) only raises about $750 Billion annually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
I believe that after one of the federal sales tax incremental increases, the tax rate will approach an unacceptable rate and further transformation of our major federal tax revenue sources will have to cease.
We will then have a federal sales tax that all enterprises and individuals will pay, and a remaining progressive income tax with a high starting income tax bracket that will only be paid by individuals and corporations of greater incomes.
If I’m incorrect, all federal taxes upon net incomes will be abolished.
Respectfully, Supposn
That's not how it works. You might want to start with the fact that Congress spends about $4.5 TRILLION annually, then add in the cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Basically, what we have here is a scheme to eliminate the FICA payroll tax under a thinly veiled disguise of a "fair" tax.
Under a national sales tax I would exempt everything needed to maintain life, schooling, and/or holding a job.
To name a few, food, water, medicine, medical and dental care, housing, clothes, schools and supplies, transportation to and from a job, uniforms for a job, training for a job. This is just what I could come up with in a few minutes.
A national sales tax also has the benefit of taxing the underground economy. Drug dealers and other criminals spend money too.
How exactly do you plan on raising $1.5 TRILLION annually just to cover Social Security by exempting everything?
So you intend to replace a 6.2% regressive payroll tax with a 35% progressive federal sales tax?
You might want to do the math.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
