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.
Which is exactly why it would destroy our economy. For example, I drive a twelve-year-old car, which needs a new transmission but is in otherwise good condition. I could buy a new car and I'm considering it, but given a 40% VAT I'm much more likely to buy the $3k transmission instead, regardless of income tax.
Why would it be 40%?
Also why would fixing your old car be bad?
Quote:
Furthermore, a VAT would throw our government agencies into chaos, because they would have no way to estimate revenue stream and budget accordingly.
Great.
Quote:
I wish you could know how hilarious it is that you would recommend "Affluenza" to me of all people. Let's just say that I have never been accused of materialism, and my family's relatively modest lifestyle wouldn't exactly tip people off to our tax bracket and assets. Even our closest relatives have no clue.
Well it is odd you think keeping our disgusting consumer society is a worthy goal....
Ultimately the only fair tax would be no tax and all services commercialized and pay-as-you-go.
The problem with that is that the government would have to do away with countless agencies and useless employees who offer no product or service whatsoever and a bunch of people who earned the right to vote by simply taking up space wouldn't go for that.
But anyway, so once we've stripped out subsidies for services that can be privatized and made pay-as-you-go, and we're left with the stuff that needs central funding, like the military, judicial system, law enforcement that would still need to exist in addition to private security - we're decided that a fixed, 'poll tax' is the fairest system, right?
Yes it would be.
Quote:
Next question: what does the tax need to be set at, in order to maintain those institutions needed for a secure and economically effective nation? What would the amount per head be?
There is the problem,the fedgov seems to have a problem staying within budget.
No,that is the reason it cannot work,people think it would not make the 'rich' pay enough..
That's a political argument, which is fine - you think the public wont go for it. I take it, then, you're happy with the poll tax from an economic perspective?
Except that...
Quote:
..Me personally,IF everyone paid the same flat amount,that amount would have to probably be quite a bit...how much does the fedgov need every year?
Well, by my calculations, with a federal spend of $3tn (slightly below the actual figure for 2011/12), and a current working population of 130m (figures from WolframAlfa), the poll tax would come in at about $23,000 per person.
That is it exactly - out of touch with what $250k means in 2011. $250k is two parents working middle manager jobs that pay in the $100-150k range. It's parents who will have to pay FULL TUITION at public universities that cost $20-30k per year and private universities that cost $50k+ per year because......too rich to qualify for financial aid but too poor to be able to take a $30k sucker punch out of pocket. Two parents who paid $10,000+ per year to leave kiddos in daycare so they can both work. Two parents who know everything will be tight if one of them suffers a job loss or wage reduction.
We're mid 100's and made too much for any sort of federal aid. #1 child attends a state school and won 3 scholarships which help, but the college savings will run out by the end of junior year -- provided there are no tuition increases.
Many of our clients are at the $250K combined income level. Should more of their income go to the IRS, less work comes my way. When the economy dips, work slows. I can't see it being much different should their tax liability rise.
But anyway, so once we've stripped out subsidies for services that can be privatized and made pay-as-you-go, and we're left with the stuff that needs central funding, like the military, judicial system, law enforcement that would still need to exist in addition to private security - we're decided that a fixed, 'poll tax' is the fairest system, right?
Next question: what does the tax need to be set at, in order to maintain those institutions needed for a secure and economically effective nation? What would the amount per head be?
Well, you're herding me quite well so, yes that would be the fairest "tax". Since you're the one running this hypothetical situation, what is your suggested amount. I have no numbers as your response was entirely unexpected and took me completely by surprise. Well done BTW!
Admittedly I'd very likely be enthralled by such a scheme because quite frankly, if the poorest can pay it, I can easily.
That's a political argument, which is fine - you think the public wont go for it. I take it, then, you're happy with the poll tax from an economic perspective?
Except that...
Well, by my calculations, with a federal spend of $3tn (slightly below the actual figure for 2011/12), and a current working population of 130m (figures from WolframAlfa), the poll tax would come in at about $23,000 per person.
We're mid 100's and made too much for any sort of federal aid. #1 child attends a state school and won 3 scholarships which help, but the college savings will run out by the end of junior year -- provided there are no tuition increases.
Many of our clients are at the $250K combined income level. Should more of their income go to the IRS, less work comes my way. When the economy dips, work slows. I can't see it being much different should their tax liability rise.
Oh, c'mon! We put two through on less income than that! One went to a private college that was not real generous with the scholarships.
Hey people making $250k a year - you're in the top 1% of earners in the US! That means that 99/100 families make less than you do! Congratulations!
Know how you're responsibly making your mortgage payments? Saving for your retirement? Taking a vacation once or twice a year? Going out to eat at nice restaurants every so often?
Yeah, see, people making far less than that - those 99%! - can't do that. They may able to afford rent, maybe some consumer electronics (which are nice and cheap due to labor exploitation overseas), have a crappy car that they can barely afford to fix, can't save a penny for retirement and can easily go bankrupt if they get sick because their health insurance (if they have any) sucks!
It's super duper that you are so responsible with your money, not spending it on lavish vacations or corporate jet timeshares. But see, if you wanted to live irresponsibly and high on the hog, you have that option. $250k buys a lot of nice vacations if you don't want to put money in your 401k. Others don't have that option.
Well, you're herding me quite well so, yes that would be the fairest "tax". Since you're the one running this hypothetical situation, what is your suggested amount. I have no numbers as your response was entirely unexpected and took me completely by surprise. Well done BTW!
Admittedly I'd very likely be enthralled by such a scheme because quite frankly, if the poorest can pay it, I can easily.
Well, based on my calcs. above, can we say that with extensive privatisation we could reduce the fed budget to about 1/3 of its original size?
That would mean that our poll tax would be about $7500, or about one quarter of the median income of a person in the US.
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.
