Democrats set to impose largest tax hike in history, take $2,000/year from you

The Fair Tax Book

Read this book. It already answers all of that. None of what you say is true. There will be no more consumption taxes avoided by black market than income taxes avoided by accepting cash today. There are already hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of independent and semi-independent service providers who vastly underpay income tax. The "black market" will pale in comparison.

 

I think it's probably the best tax system I'v seeing from either side.

 

more appropriately, it should be entitled "the farce tax system"

 

Whoever stated "I pay enough taxes"...I second that.

 

I guess we have to pay for W's big ole war bill sometime !

DD

 

true that

this contradicts your earlier post. do you not understand that exempting used good has the effect of encouraging consumption ????

• 
  

Andy, it seems to me that you are not able to distinguish income tax from sales tax. you, like most non-tax people, lump both of them together thinking that taxes are taxes. once you're able to distinguish income tax from sales tax, you'll see the farce, that is being promoted under the so-called "national sales tax", for what it is

 

Exempting used goods encourages people to recycle goods that have already been "consumed." The first person to buy a product is "consuming" it and I would give a tax break to people that recycle those products.

Dude, what are you talking about?

I said that a consumption tax (national sales tax) would encourage saving rather than spending. It would do this because the person would receive their entire salary in their paycheck, but would only pay tax on consumed goods. Therefore, there is a tax break built in for people who save their money rather than spending it.

 

thank you making my point for me

 

The point i made is that there is a HUGE difference in income and consumption taxes and then went on to show how a consumption tax could encourage saving over spending.

You may have a point, but it is about as clear as the water in Galveston.

 

what you show is a lack of understanding of income tax vs. sales tax.

You keep harping on saving, yet you do not know which country whose citizens have the highest savings rate !

• 
  it doesnot have a national sales tax; its (Japan) savings rate ~ double that of the VAT-nations in the EU.

could it be that a VAT system does not encourge savings as much as it has been hyped.

 

Japan has a much different culture than Western Europe. I don't know that you can point to their tax system only and say that is why they save at a higher rate than VAT using countries in the EU.

 

Please illustrate my "lack of understanding" as I have a very good idea what each tax does and don't see how I have shown any confusion whatsoever.

And do you know what country has the lowest savings rate?

The United States. In fact, we have a NEGATIVE savings rate as people continue to take on credit card and home equity debt.

A consumption tax would encourage savings and would discourage spending money you don't have, particularly if you got hit with a 25% tax bill on top of the price of the product.

 

So...raising prices increases savings???? But a 24% credit card interest rate doesn't?

 

i am leading AndyMoon to think that it is the culture, not so much the tax system, that impacts savings.

That are many who are buying into the hype---mostly stemming from a lack of understanding that income tax is not sale tax, and vice versa---that a national sales tax would be the remedy for the US's low savings rate.

 

And I believe that in order to change the culture, we will need to make the tax system reward people who save over people who consume.

The evidence points to the conclusion that a consumption tax will encourage saving.

 

it is fair to say that you're all mixed-up

blanket statement without evidence renders it no creditability.

 

How do you balance the budget without gettting more money? And you are right, democrats were elected beause they are not republicans.

 

Change that to future occupations, not conflicts.

 

prima facie evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about, other than parroting the hype

once again, Andy, income tax is income tax, sales tax is sales tax; they're separate and distinct. 70+ years of empirical evidence in the US indicates that there is no direct correlation between a tax system and the society's propensity to save.

• the current US tax system has a # of tax incentives that encourage people to save, such as the 401K / SEPTA plans, yet a sizeable # of young workers (including educated professionals) do not care to take advantage of this no-brainer "saving" strategy.

in the face of this reality, to continue parroting the hype that a national sales tax can change the Americans' "saving" culture is blissful ignorance.

it is analogous to Dubya's rhetorics that the US can successful impose American-style democracy on a civilization that is more interested in ethnic cleansing.

 

A good read.

Don't dismiss it without doing further research.

There is no need for an income tax in this country.

What we need is to stop borrowing money.

From "why an income tax is not needed"

But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let's have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 "election", but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords 'fessed up to his real political agenda.

Current Congressionally created debt:

9/29/2006
$8,506,973,899,215.23
7%
(R)

9/30/2005
$7,932,709,661,723.50
8%
(R)

9/30/2004
$7,379,052,696,330.32
9%
(R)

9/30/2003
$6,783,231,062,743.62
9%
(R)

9/30/2002
$6,228,235,965,597.16
7%
(R)

9/28/2001
$5,807,463,412,200.06
2%
(R)

9/29/2000
$5,674,178,209,886.86
0%
(D)

9/30/1999
$5,656,270,901,615.43
2%
(D)

9/30/1998
$5,526,193,008,897.62
2%
(D)

9/30/1997
$5,413,146,011,397.34
4%
(D)

9/30/1996
$5,224,810,939,135.73
5%
(D)

9/29/1995
$4,973,982,900,709.39
6%
(D)

9/30/1994
$4,692,749,910,013.32
6%
(D)

9/30/1993
$4,411,488,883,139.38
9%
(D)

9/30/1992
$4,064,620,655,521.66
11%
(R)

9/30/1991
$3,665,303,351,697.03
13%
(R)

9/28/1990
$3,233,313,451,777.25
13%
(R)

9/29/1989
$2,857,430,960,187.32
10%
(R)

9/30/1988
$2,602,337,712,041.16
11%
(R)

9/30/1987
$2,350,276,890,953.00
(R)

link