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.
Sales and excise taxes are the lesser of all evils because it offers the most freedom for the taxpayer. I have direct control over how much I want to contribute to the government by increasing or decreasing my spending at my own leisure.
??? Except that since the poor MUST spend in order to survive, they don't exactly get on on the freedom thing.
??? If people who do not own property are getting a free ride, why don't you sell your home and start renting? Perhaps because then you would be paying even more than you pay now whille getting no appreciation and no equity? In Michigan the school property tax rate on rental property is four times the tax rate on owner-occupied homes; that works out to an extra $1200 property tax on a typical rental house. I am paying that extra property tax PLUS a hefty profit to my landlord. Maybe it's homeowners who aren't pulling their weight in property taxes.
Free ride? Get a grip. I know you think that homeowners pay "more" than renters on taxes, but the fact is that homeowners pay taxes and renters do not. Unless you, as a renter, send a check payable to your local tax collector, you do NOT pay property taxes.
You do pay a rent based on the market and expenses of the landlord. Those expenses include mortgage, insurance, maintenance, repairs and taxes. But just as you paying rent in no way makes you a mortgage holder, you do not pay taxes.
Your envy of those of us that have managed to take advantage of the freedoms afforded this great nation, and actually own a home, is getting tiresome.
MKPunk, the topic of this thread is the comparative of sales tax to other tax methods.
Taxes and fees are governments’ methods for obtaining revenues.
The diligence applied to the administration and enforcement of those methods government has chosen to utilize and particularly the tax and fee rates all contribute to the net rate of yield and the total revenues derived from those aggregate methods.
When accumulated revenues fall short of immediate expenses due, government has no other alternative than cover the short fall by direct borrowing or printing more currency, (i.e. inflating the nation’s currency).
The allocation and priorities of government’s expenditures, (i.e. where we should spend) is not this discussion thread’s topic. Surly where our governments should spend are topics worthy of their own discussion threads?
I get that, I included the quoted post that I was replying to. It was a post in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorofnyc
The problem with these debates is that it's completely pointless to talk about eliminating/replacing taxes without address cutting government spending at the same time. A smaller tax burden can only be achieved by smaller government.
Basically the idea is that without cutting spending, the belief is no tax structure should be enacted.
As for the sales tax push, I've stated before my opinions on this thread and others. The majority ask for the "FairTax" which is a replacement to all types of existing income taxes AND payroll taxes while giving a prebate to make it progressive as a sales tax is inherently regressive. The problem is for tax payers, the FairTax proposal is less tax revenue coming in to compare with income and payroll taxes for the majority. The non tax payers on the current system and tourists would need to eat the difference of the tax to make it revenue neutral WITHOUT spending cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorofnyc
A good place to start would be probably be the constitution. Besides the military, the post office, the US Mint, and Interstate Highways...what else is the federal government authorized to spend our tax dollars on?
Social security, medicare and (to a lesser extent) medicaid. The country isn't going to gut those programs because anyone who puts those cuts on the table aren't going to get votes in their districts if they have older voters dependent on those programs.
MayorOfNYC and FreeMkt, you’re both (to some extent) correct.
General sales taxes are not in themselves regressive or progressive but they are more regressive when compared to a progressive income tax system.
There are many loop holes within our income tax regulations. Conservatives would have us believe otherwise but due to these special strokes for special folks USA’s “progressive income taxes are not all that progressive.
I advocate reducing all regular federal income tax rates by the same portion of taxable income and replacing those revenues with a general federal sales tax.
I’m also an advocate of entirely eliminating medicinal funding from the Federal Insurance Contribution Act’s, (AKA “FICA”) payroll tax revenue’s earmarks. There is no logical relationship between wages and medical need. Half of Social Security retirement and disability funding should be funded by federal sales tax revenues rather than by FICA.
Refer to the discussion thread “ //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...egressive.html “.
General sales taxes are characteristically flat rate taxes but they can (to some small extent) be drafted as more progressive.
Sales taxes could be waived for types of services or goods that are a greater portion of lesser rather than wealthier purchasers. Some examples of such waivers are:
Waiving sales taxes upon food or for drugs prescribed by licensed physicians and not indirectly or directly provided by restaurants or caterers.
Waiving monthly threshold amounts of utility services delivered to primary residences (e.g. the first $75/per month of electricity and/or any other similar public utility services); the amounts of all waived thresholds of goods and services need to be annually cost-of-living adjusted.
MayorOfNYC and FreeMkt, you’re both (to some extent) correct.
General sales taxes are not in themselves regressive or progressive but they are more regressive when compared to a progressive income tax system.
They are inherently regressive. Why, the rich and super rich are much less likely to live paycheck to paycheck. That means that they would get taxed for what they spend which is at a much lower percentage than middle class and working class people who actually pay a good amount of their bi-weekly paychecks towards expenses and therefor making themselves more affected by the sales taxes.
Quote:
There are many loop holes within our income tax regulations. Conservatives would have us believe otherwise but due to these special strokes for special folks USA’s “progressive income taxes are not all that progressive.
Conservatives complain about the exemptions, why else would more push for the flat tax and FairTax?
Quote:
I advocate reducing all regular federal income tax rates by the same portion of taxable income and replacing those revenues with a general federal sales tax.
I'm against it for the reasons of it being inherently regressive. Are there any reasons why a sales tax isn't inherently regressive?
Quote:
I’m also an advocate of entirely eliminating medicinal funding from the Federal Insurance Contribution Act’s, (AKA “FICA”) payroll tax revenue’s earmarks. There is no logical relationship between wages and medical need. Half of Social Security retirement and disability funding should be funded by federal sales tax revenues rather than by FICA.
Refer to the discussion thread “ //www.city-data.com/forum/econo...egressive.html “.
As I've stated with the FairTax's problem, there has to be enough tax revenue to be a true replacement tax. I don't think immigrants, drug dealers and tourists will bring in enough for the off-set. The only thing you can do is cut those programs. Social Security isn't going away because the more likely voters, the elderly will vote any politician pushing them out.
Quote:
General sales taxes are characteristically flat rate taxes but they can (to some small extent) be drafted as more progressive.
The only "progressive" sales tax I've seen is the FairTax which besides the working poor and super rich, the tax burdens increase on everyone.
Quote:
Sales taxes could be waived for types of services or goods that are a greater portion of lesser rather than wealthier purchasers. Some examples of such waivers are:
Waiving sales taxes upon food or for drugs prescribed by licensed physicians and not indirectly or directly provided by restaurants or caterers.
Waiving monthly threshold amounts of utility services delivered to primary residences (e.g. the first $75/per month of electricity and/or any other similar public utility services); the amounts of all waived thresholds of goods and services need to be annually cost-of-living adjusted.
Here's the issue. In New York food and clothing are exempt from sales tax, in Arizona food is but clothing isn't. Don't you think people would game that like the loopholes you mentioned earlier? To be truly fair, you would need to go to the fair tax proposal of making nothing exempt from sales tax.
Mkpunk, what did you mean by this sentence? Respectfully, Supposn
Mayor's point was that I quote was that until spending is put under control there is no real reason to change tax structures which led for me to talk about where to cut.
They are inherently regressive. Why, the rich and super rich are much less likely to live paycheck to paycheck. That means that they would get taxed for what they spend which is at a much lower percentage than middle class and working class people who actually pay a good amount of their bi-weekly paychecks towards expenses and therefor making themselves more affected by the sales taxes. ... ...I'm against it (i.e. sale tax) for the reasons of it being inherently regressive. Are there any reasons why a sales tax isn't inherently regressive?
As I've stated with the FairTax's problem, there has to be enough tax revenue to be a true replacement tax. I don't think immigrants, drug dealers and tourists will bring in enough for the off-set. The only thing you can do is cut those programs. Social Security isn't going away because the more likely voters, the elderly will vote any politician pushing them out.
The only "progressive" sales tax I've seen is the FairTax which besides the working poor and super rich, the tax burdens increase on everyone.
Here's the issue. In New York food and clothing are exempt from sales tax, in Arizona food is but clothing isn't. Don't you think people would game that like the loopholes you mentioned earlier? To be truly fair, you would need to go to the fair tax proposal of making nothing exempt from sales tax.
MkPunk, no one denies that a flat rated general sales tax is more regressive than a progressive income tax but a flat tax general sales tax is not actually a regressive tax. It does not burden less wealthy purchasers with a greater tax rate and wealthier purchasers with a lesser tax rate upon their purchases.
Conservatives do not generally complain about (income tax) exemptions unless those exemptions are not of greater benefit to those who are wealthier.
The advocated tax modifications that I mentioned within my post #54 of this thread are (at very least), revenue neutral and are more likely to increase government’s net tax revenues.
I never wrote of “progressive sales taxes”. I explained that although general sales taxes are characteristically flat rate taxes, they can (to some small extent) be drafted as being more progressive (than a pure flat rated tax).
It’s advantageous that all purchasers of USA or foreign products accepted for delivery within the USA would contribute to USA’s federal general sales tax’s revenues. Due to the annual cost- living adjustments, (COLAs), this would be of no net burden to social security retirement or disability beneficiaries. When our federal minimum wage rates are also so COLA’d, this would be of no net burden to our working poor and because the minimum wage has a positive inverse affect proportional to the minimum and ALL other wage rates, this would be of no net burden to all other employees.
Within the constraints of the USA Constitution and our federal laws, Arizona governs their own jurisdiction. The proposals mentioned within post #54 of this thread are all regarding federal law.
Free ride? Get a grip. I know you think that homeowners pay "more" than renters on taxes, but the fact is that homeowners pay taxes and renters do not. Unless you, as a renter, send a check payable to your local tax collector, you do NOT pay property taxes.
You do pay a rent based on the market and expenses of the landlord. Those expenses include mortgage, insurance, maintenance, repairs and taxes. But just as you paying rent in no way makes you a mortgage holder, you do not pay taxes.
Your envy of those of us that have managed to take advantage of the freedoms afforded this great nation, and actually own a home, is getting tiresome.
My rent is tied to the property taxes so when the taxes go up, so does the rent I pay. (This is specifically allowed in a rental agreement under Michigan law.) Under the standard you employ, a landlord who thinks the way you do could just set rent up the wazoo, pay the taxes with the collected rent, and argue that the tenant didn't pay the property taxes - all while laughing all the way to the bank. How convenient. With your thinking, renters pay property taxes only if landlords 'allow' them to do so. You entertain a convenient fiction that renters somehow magically escape paying property taxes. If that's the case, why not make taxes on rental property 10x or 20x the taxes on equivalent owner-occupied homes? Renters don't pay it, so no sweat right? And if that's the case why do Realtors (R) use the line "your tenant pays your mortgage/property taxes" to sell rental property? Are they lying?
Free ride? Get a grip. I know you think that homeowners pay "more" than renters on taxes, but the fact is that homeowners pay taxes and renters do not. Unless you, as a renter, send a check payable to your local tax collector, you do NOT pay property taxes.
You do pay a rent based on the market and expenses of the landlord. Those expenses include mortgage, insurance, maintenance, repairs and taxes. But just as you paying rent in no way makes you a mortgage holder, you do not pay taxes.
Your envy of those of us that have managed to take advantage of the freedoms afforded this great nation, and actually own a home, is getting tiresome.
The state of Michigan presumes that 20 percent of rent paid constitutes property taxes paid by the renter. And that is not even a rebuttable presumption.
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.
You entertain a convenient fiction that renters somehow magically escape paying property taxes. If that's the case, why not make taxes on rental property 10x or 20x the taxes on equivalent owner-occupied homes? Renters don't pay it, so no sweat right? And if that's the case why do Realtors (R) use the line "your tenant pays your mortgage/property taxes" to sell rental property? Are they lying?
