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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-20-2017, 07:05 PM
 
844 posts, read 359,406 times
Reputation: 875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by evening sun View Post
So now I am retired & collecting SS, which I paid into all my life, & now you want me to continue to pay, via a sales tax. I think not.
Supposn feels like you'd be happy to pay because you're getting SS COLAs and this structure will make SS more solvent.

Don't you feel lucky and grateful?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2017, 07:25 PM
 
11,892 posts, read 14,359,727 times
Reputation: 7526
The Feds have long agreed that sales taxes are the states' revenue source and stayed out. Furthermore, many States exempt certain purchases. Some tax food at a lower rate, some exempt it altogether. Same for children's clothing. And som have tax "holidays" in August for school supplies. My point is, it won't fly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2017, 08:29 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Do you have data to support that a 4.55% tax rate would replace the fica reduction? ...
LowExpectations, think about it. Do you believe the gross revenue of many enterprises are 100% of their payrolls? they don’t use any materials or supplies? they have no profit margin? Even an accountant needs a pencil? a notebook? a computer? rents an office? pays for insurance, pays interest on the credit card that furnished the office?

Considering an enterprise’s payroll and additionally the cost of labor imbedded within the goods and intangible products that enterprises pay for, it remains difficult to believe that USA payrolls would be half the prices of all USA’s goods and service transactions. If it isn’t half, then possibly it’s more or less a third?

If FICA revenue is reduced by 9.1% of USA’s total payrolls and replaced with an effectively 4.55% sales tax, then the sales tax would entirely replace the lost FICA revenue.
(0.0455)(2) – (0.091)(1) = 0

If payrolls are a third of USA’s sales taxed transactions, then the 4.55% sales tax would increase USA’s tax revenues
by (0.0455)(3) – (0.091)(1) = 4.55% OF USA’s total payrolls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2017, 08:46 PM
 
17,615 posts, read 12,203,533 times
Reputation: 12851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
LowExpectations, think about it. Do you believe the gross revenue of many enterprises are 100% of their payrolls? they don’t use any materials or supplies? they have no profit margin? Even an accountant needs a pencil? a notebook? a computer? rents an office? pays for insurance, pays interest on the credit card that furnished the office?

Considering an enterprise’s payroll and additionally the cost of labor imbedded within the goods and intangible products that enterprises pay for, it remains difficult to believe that USA payrolls would be half the prices of all USA’s goods and service transactions. If it isn’t half, then possibly it’s more or less a third?

If FICA revenue is reduced by 9.1% of USA’s total payrolls and replaced with an effectively 4.55% sales tax, then the sales tax would entirely replace the lost FICA revenue.
(0.0455)(2) – (0.091)(1) = 0

If payrolls are a third of USA’s sales taxed transactions, then the 4.55% sales tax would increase USA’s tax revenues
by (0.0455)(3) – (0.091)(1) = 4.55% OF USA’s total payrolls.
Why are your purposely only answering a handful of questions and ignoring the rest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2017, 09:42 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,714,185 times
Reputation: 8928
A sales tax that fully taxes a renter's housing consumption and exempts most of a homeowner's housing consumption is inherently regressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2017, 10:10 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
So would you tax home sales? Rent? ...
LowExpectations, within post #8 I expressed some of my opinions regarding waivers of general sales taxes.

I’m an advocate of waiving sales taxes upon medicines, or food other than that supplied by restaurants, or caterers.
it’s difficult to draft legislation the parses ordinary and luxury priced products. For that reason, I’m advocate of fewer such sales tax waivers upon classes of products. But the political reality is that there will be more than I prefer.

I’m aware to the extent that general sales taxes are waived upon sales of products that are more often or in greater quantities consumed by lower income persons, we can to some limited extent transform a sales tax to be effectively more progressive.
But it’s difficult to draft regulatory provisions for such products as not to unduly reduce tax revenues.
Travel within reasonable commuting distances on mass transportation is one of the service products that I would prefer to be waived if the legal drafting did not also allow waivers for longer distances or more luxurious transportation.

Difficulty of legal drafting is much less problematic for products or services that can be linked to individuals’ primary residences. It’s feasible to waive a capped amount upon rents, specific utilities, and other services linked to such residences; those capped amounts should be annually cost-of-living adjusted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2017, 10:30 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Why are your purposely only answering a handful of questions and ignoring the rest?
LowExpectations, because I don’t draft posts and type “faster than a speeding bullet”. I also don’t leap “over tall buildings in a single bound”.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2017, 10:38 PM
 
Location: the Permian Basin
4,093 posts, read 2,820,753 times
Reputation: 5665
Quote:
Originally Posted by evening sun View Post
So now I am retired & collecting SS, which I paid into all my life, & now you want me to continue to pay, via a sales tax. I think not.
In the interest of fairness in this hypothetical, you should be able to deduct what you pay in sales tax from your income taxes. But in reality, you should never have been forced to pay into SS in the first place.

As to the OP's suggestion, I won't support creating a new tax unless an existing tax is first eliminated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 12:11 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
... who saves more in dollars and percentage terms the 40k earner or the 400k one
Transcript of post #5:
LowExpectations, the advantage to employees, their dependents, and USA’s economy is the better enabling retention of full Social Securities’ future benefits with no net increase of employees’ taxes.

FICA payroll taxes certainly do not promote job creations. Because the tax is unrelated to an enterprises net income, it’s a greater drag upon smaller enterprises struggling against low profit margins. Enterprise’s reduced net taxes are of some additional net economic benefit to our nation.

Individual’s purchases, rather than their income tax filings are a more accurate indication of individuals comparative incomes and wealth. This proposal would effectively greater increase wealthier individuals’ proportions of federal tax payments.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Low expectations, the alternative to continuing our current policies is to increase the detrimental effects of employees and enterprises tax increases, and/or the detrimental effects of reduced future Social Security Benefits for our current and possibly more working generations, and/or continuing or increasing the current extent of FICA’s drag upon job creation and detriment to small marginal enterprises.

Current employees and their families will be the first losers if FICA taxes are increased during their working years and/or it their retirement benefits are reduced prior to or during their retirement years.

It’s not a question as to who saves more? We all lose if we fail to better manage our economy. Those who are wealthier have more to lose; but they’re in better positions to manage their affairs, minimize their losses, and they’ll be more comfortable than the remainder of us while they’ll be doing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 12:27 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
The Feds have long agreed that sales taxes are the states' revenue source and stayed out. ...
Pvande55, “The Feds have long agreed”? Your aware of an unpublished portion of the U.S. Constitution, or federal statute, or something was leaked out from a cabinet meeting that CNN and the NY times is not yet aware of?
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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