U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-05-2017, 12:47 PM
 
293 posts, read 155,181 times
Reputation: 324

Advertisements

[quote=Supposn;49423938]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bp25 View Post
I didn't read the entire thread and someone may have said it already: moving from income based tax to spending based tax encourages savings and reduced spending.
BP25, because:
our nation is in spiraling policy of increasingly greater deficit spending. Other nations are greatly reducing their distances behind our GDP leads, we're not properly educating our children, maintaining and improving our infrastructures, maintaining our public health, protecting our environment.

Income disparity only concerns me because the rich are again being ADDITIONALLY more able to to purchase a less populist government. A governmrnt of a nation's proportionally growing major segment of population existing in environments of comparatively much poorer life qualities.
Ok, mine was a sarcastic question. I agree with all the things you said, but the ones benefiting from the current structure of the economy are in power and will have no interest in upsetting it.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2017, 05:53 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
[quote=Bp25;49425741]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post

Ok, mine was a sarcastic question. I agree with all the things you said, but the ones benefiting from the current structure of the economy are in power and will have no interest in upsetting it.
BP25, You're correct; but thing change.

Among my movie favorites is “Things Change”. In 1988, many years past Don Ameche's romantic lover era,his character in this movie relates a wonderful story illustrating that concept. If due to my recommendation you should see this movie, you'll thankful for it.

Often our determinations are not based upon the economic principles but are rather more personally driven. Refer to the thread
Essence of opposition to the minimum wage.

Last edited by Supposn; 09-05-2017 at 07:10 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2017, 05:12 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
I advocate reducing the total FICA tax by 9.1% of payroll and replacing it with a 4.55% general sales tax to increase net funding of Social Security retirement and Medicare.
Consequentially due to price increases:
(1) Wages' increased net pay and purchasing power will be less significant for employees and their dependents.
(2) Employers' will much more gain from their half of the FICA tax deduction.
(3) Social Security retirees will be shielded by their annual cost-of-living adjustments, (COLA).
(4) The purchasing powers of all other incomes (not shielded by COLA), will be reduced. Their net federal taxes will effectively be increased.
(5) Increased net federal revenue to better fund Medicare and Social Security.

FICA is the most regressive federal tax and it's levied upon employees. Its detrimental impact is greater upon the working poor and their dependents which are a significant portion of our nation's poor.

FICA taxes levied upon employers are based upon their gross payrolls rather than upon their net incomes. The FICA payroll tax does not encourage hiring and rather than taxing net corporate incomes, it is of greater detriment to USA's aggregate small businesses.

A substantial portion of individuals’ incomes that are not subject to general sales taxes, are spent for items qualifying for reductions of their annual income taxes. Individuals expenditures rather than their income tax filings, are a more accurate reflection of USA’s aggregate individuals’ wealth and annual incomes. A federal general sales tax, rather than an increase of income tax rates, would harvest greater amounts of tax revenues from those earning more than USA’s median income.[/quote]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2017, 05:37 PM
 
Location: West Madison^WMHT
3,174 posts, read 2,742,027 times
Reputation: 3822
Question How do we keep FICA from climbing back up again the next time the government decides it needs more money?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
I advocate reducing the total FICA tax by 9.1% of payroll and replacing it with a 4.55% general sales tax to increase net funding of Social Security retirement and Medicare.
Sounds great, but how do we keep FICA from climbing back up again the next time the government decides it needs more money?

Look at every state that has added a sales tax with the promise of reducing other taxes -- the end result is always an ever-increasing sales tax and no long-term reduction in the taxes it was intended to offset.

Quote:
A federal general sales tax, rather than an increase of income tax rates, would harvest greater amounts of tax revenues from those earning more than USA’s median income.
General sales taxes, even with exemptions for "essentials" are effectively taxes on the middle and upper middle class, only the very poor and the very rich would fare better from a federal general sales tax, rather than an increase of income tax rates.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2017, 09:17 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
I advocate reducing the total FICA tax by 9.1% of payroll and replacing it with a 4.55% general sales tax to increase net funding of Social Security retirement and Medicare.
Consequentially due to price increases:
(1) Wages' increased net pay and purchasing power will be less significant for employees and their dependents.
(2) Employers' will much more gain from their half of the FICA tax deduction.
(3) Social Security retirees will be shielded by their annual cost-of-living adjustments, (COLA).
(4) The purchasing powers of all other incomes (not shielded by COLA), will be reduced. Their net federal taxes will effectively be increased.
(5) Increased net federal revenue to better fund Medicare and Social Security. …
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonesuch View Post
Sounds great, but how do we keep FICA from climbing back up again the next time the government decides it needs more money?

Look at every state that has added a sales tax with the promise of reducing other taxes -- the end result is always an ever-increasing sales tax and no long-term reduction in the taxes it was intended to offset. ...
NoneSuch, the purpose of this tax proposal is to somewhat increase tax revenues with less than our current tax policies' detrimental impact upon USA's working poor, their dependents, and our nation's net economy.

I'm among the proponents for increasing funding for Medicare and Social Security. Reducing their benefits for future generations of retirees would be detrimental to the them, their families and our nation's economy.

I certainly do not advocate tax increases as a solution for all fiscal problems. But if the alternative is net detrimental to our economic well-being, tax increases are preferable.
When you consider fiscal responsibility, you also must consider what financial savings are irresponsible.
For example, regrettably no high officers of Michigan's government have been sentenced to a state penitentiary. The Governor and his administration poisoned Flint Michigan's water supply, reduced public health, and caused an enormous amount of unrecoverable financial loss, due to their irresponsible thrift.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2017, 11:38 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonesuch View Post
... General sales taxes, even with exemptions for "essentials" are effectively taxes on the middle and upper middle class, only the very poor and the very rich would fare better from a federal general sales tax, rather than an increase of income tax rates.
NoneSuch, No; your paragraph is incorrect.

The unemployed poor that are not dependents of employees, thus do to spend employment derived incomes, and are not, (as social security beneficiaries are) shielded by cost-of-living-adjusted incomes, do not as you wrote, “fair well”.
But so regressive is the FICA payroll tax, that even without some additional provision to better compensate those poor people, the economic benefits are sufficient that I still advocate this tax proposal.

The very wealthy would NOT “fare better” from a general sales rather than an income tax increase.

Regardless of what wealthy people purchase, they do spend and what proportion of their spendings are necessary or unnecessary is inconsequential. When they purchase goods and services that they claim as for commercial purposes, or invest their wealth, they reduce their income subject to income taxes and to sales taxes.

Government is not less likely to collect our fully entitled sales tax rather than income tax revenues, In the cases of medium or large enterprises, what's their annual incomes are very debatable questions,
Put a room full of tax accountants and attorneys to examine the same enterprise's books, and you'll have a room full of differing opinions as to what's the company's net annual income. Sales tax administration is not simple but it is much simpler than taxing net incomes.

Value-added tax is the superior sales tax administrating method. Particularly if the sales tax is administered by the VAT method, the government will substantially collect all the revenue we're entitled to.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top