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 08-21-2017, 01:35 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
... What about foreign purchases, will there now be a federal use tax to capture all of that spending. ...
SuiteLiving, about foreign purchases, many nations we trade with, (possibly most of the major nations we trade with), have a national sales tax and that tax is often among those nations’ major tax revenue producers.

[many if not all those nations now have a “Value Added Tax”, (i.e. VAT) which is the superior method of administrating general sales taxes. They waive their entire VAT from their exports so their goods are sold to foreign nation without one of their major taxes imbedded within their export prices.
In USA’s domestic markets, USA goods are at great price disadvantages to foreign goods. Our goods carry USA higher labor costs and all taxes imbedded within their prices.

Within those foreign markets, USA goods are at great disadvantage to their domestic goods. Because we do not have a VAT system, there’s no method to determine how much taxes are imbedded within a product as it passes between different intermediate handlers and processers. If we wanted to waive our taxes from a product, we couldn’t determine how much taxes to waive.
Unlike foreign products in USA’s domestic markets, USA products in foreign domestic markets carry USA’s higher wage scales, all USA taxes, and all the foreign VAT taxes collected from the importer.
Foreign goods entering the USA pay no federal sales tax but USA goods entering foreign markets fully contribute to those nation’s sales tax collectors.

No FICA taxes are imbedded within the prices of imported vehicles when they reach their USA entry port.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2017, 07:19 AM
 
17,613 posts, read 12,203,533 times
Reputation: 12851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
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.

It was a simple question that you somehow can't answer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 09:40 AM
 
1,025 posts, read 559,196 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
It was a simple question that you somehow can't answer
Within post #5 I responded to your question, “Who saves more money both as a percentage and actual dollars annually the person earning 40k a year or 400k”.
That was a 105 word synopsis of expected consequences if the USA adopted such a proposed policy or if we continued as we do now.

You again asked the same question. Believing you had forgotten my response, I provided a transcript of post #5 in post #19 and expanded upon it.

Included within the 146 word expansion was this closing paragraph, 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.

Your response is,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
It was a simple question that you somehow can't answer
To paraphrasing Jack Nicholson; you can’t handle a logical response?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 10:19 AM
 
844 posts, read 359,406 times
Reputation: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Within post #5 I responded to your question, “Who saves more money both as a percentage and actual dollars annually the person earning 40k a year or 400k”.
That was a 105 word synopsis of expected consequences if the USA adopted such a proposed policy or if we continued as we do now.

You again asked the same question. Believing you had forgotten my response, I provided a transcript of post #5 in post #19 and expanded upon it.

Included within the 146 word expansion was this closing paragraph, 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.
translation - he doesn't have a clue so he'll spout off motherhood and apple pie about how great it is for everyone, that should be enough.

Next he'll be telling us he saved a whole bunch of money with GEICO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
3,673 posts, read 3,253,057 times
Reputation: 6508
Sales taxes disproportionately hit the poor. That makes it a bad idea.


Also, Republicans would never go along with a National Sales Tax. At least, I hope they would never go along with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 01:10 PM
 
18,242 posts, read 11,653,926 times
Reputation: 11850
IIRC nearly every nation/country or whatever with social security system has payroll taxes. Some may pile on others in order to generate revenue and or plug fiscal holes (deficits), but there you are then.


The idea is simple; those who will benefit (the employed) contribute to their future retirement "pension".


It should also be pointed out that while FICA taxes may be "regressive" to low wage workers, they do benefit vastly more than others at retirement.


As SS is currently configured in this country low wage earnings are weighted a bit heavier (IIRC) when calculating benefits from employment records. Not to mention since the truly "poor" elderly can receive both Medicare (from SS contributions) and Medicaid (general tax revenue funded), in some instances what is being proposed already happens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 03:32 PM
 
Location: West Madison^WMHT
3,173 posts, read 2,742,027 times
Reputation: 3822
And how long before we realize that the government needs to take more of our money to fund SSA or medicade and just ratchets FICA back up again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,747 posts, read 1,209,866 times
Reputation: 5047
So many problems. Maybe we just stop the tax and end SS and Medicare for everyone including current recipients.

or would the benefits being cut unfairly target the poor....

Maybe the poor can just pay their share as part of being an American...or elect to move to some other country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 06:28 PM
 
18,242 posts, read 11,653,926 times
Reputation: 11850
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.

You do realize that if you go back to work any earned income would be subject to the same payroll taxes as before, you know that don't cha?


You also know that all those IOUs federal government must repay to SS "trust fund" come from general tax revenue. So either way just because you are no longer actively working and drawing SS, it does not follow your rate paying days into the system are over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2017, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,202,467 times
Reputation: 8988
Any national retail sales tax on consumption is an unconstitutional excise tax that extends into states.

Remember, government instituted to secure rights cannot tax rights - only privileges.
WHAT FEDERAL PRIVILEGE ARE YOU EXERCISING WHEN YOU BUY AT RETAIL?

In states, a licensed business is the taxed entity - who is allowed to pass the tax onto to his customers - the real taxpayer. (Where else do businesses and laborers get their money to pay their taxes?)

To grant national licensing power to the Federal government is a tacit end of State government authority and kiss the USCON good bye.

Frankly, the remedy is not to find a "pleasant" tax, but to shrink the government by several orders of magnitude.

Oh, and abolish socialism, while you're at it. (FICA / Socialist InSecurity)
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