I know I won't (in 3 or so years my earning power will increase dramatically) but most people will live at or below my current level of income. Unlike you, I actually give a crap what happens to people that make less than I do. and BTW keep dreaming, you couldn't teach me anything except for how to run from a debate.
Like max posted earlier, if there is some kind of credit/rebate for the consumption tax, and if you spend within your limits and not over extend yourself, you still would pay almost no tax (with the rebate). However if you are maxed out on 15 credit cards and driving a leased BMW, goes out for dinner every night, you will be taxed (a lot). This is will promote more saving/investing, which in general will be good for our economy. And Glynch, if you don't have any substance to add to the topic or you just don't understand the subject, please STFU.
OK, cool thanks for the explanation. That helps a bit. Oh and please allow me to offer some guidance of my own. With all due respect, you have 93 posts and while you may have lurked for some time, telling anyone in here, especially someone that has been here as long as Glynch to STFU is wrong. Although I have certainly thought it, I wouldn't even tell my worst nemesis in here to STFU. There is a usually a level of deep disagreement smeared with a thin coding of sarcastic, but good natured ribbing. If he is bothering you that bad, I suggest you put him on ignore.
Agree. It can be hard, and some us can't help ourselves at times, but to promote the welfare of D&D, and the level of discussion, we all need to work to... Keep D&D Civil!!
point taken, I am just a little tired of Glynch posting the same thing over and over again while adding zero to the actual subject, I usually don't put people on ignore, maybe I should. The 93 post count does not mean my post are any less valid than others. Of course I don't cut and paste "bush is evil, bush wants oil" every 10 minutes to raise my post count.
As you can tell, I was right and you were wrong. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts to try to salvage your argument.
Max, you didn't answer my question. What basis is there to think that Bush and Greenspan have suddenly decided to make a more equitable tax system? As I noted it was relatively recently that Greenspan pushed Bush's latest round of tax cuts disproprtionately aimed at the wealthy. What could have just happened that he is suddenly seeing the light? Just claiming that I always support one side and that you are open minded (as you do roughly once a week) is not really responsive. What I believed has happened is that theGreenspan backed tax cuts have led to a trememdous deficit that is now starting to worry economists. Greenspan is feeling the heat as bankers around the world say that they are tired of supporting the declining dollar. The free ride can't go on forever. We now need more taxes. Rather than come out for a repeal of the tax cuts or raising the taxes on the wealthy (which would admit how stupid he was for supporting Bush) greenspan is seekiing to raise taxes across the board with a consumption tax.
STFU. We all know Bush is evil!!! BTW, good point which mirrors my own thoughts when first reading this thread.
you seem to miss what is obvious to most... which inthis case was the rest of my post. once again you have failed to see the big but right in front of you, and still failed to answer a legitimate question.
Well, this new plan would promote spending in your limits and saving more....BUT...isn't the American economy built on consumer spending? If all of a sudden, everybody saved more and spent less, wouldn't corporate profits drop like flies...thus massive layoffs would begin...then everybody would be spending EVEN less since unemployment would be a lot higher, right? This system only works if current consumer spending stays the same...but if everybody all of a sudden doesn't spend, tax revenues fall, corporate revenues fall, unemployment rises, ect. Of course, you would have more money in your pocket from your paycheck, but the tax system encourages you NOT so spend your extra money. Wouldn't a better plan would be to somehow encourage spending? It was the big spending, low unemployment of the late 90's that caused tax revenues to be so high to balance the budget anyways. I don't know. I consumption tax sounds good in theory, I'm just wondering if it wouldn't hurt the economy enough to cover up any benefits.
are you calling my post non-responsive? i posted actual substantive information from the only proposition for a consumption tax that i'm aware of. you posted about the "bad guys." the end. p.s. i'm unaware of any proposal by either bush or greenspan regarding a consumption tax. this is just a statement by greenspan that he believes one might help the economy grow.
Why are people assuming that if we adopt a consumption tax, the tax rate will be 10%? Where did that come from?!?! From models I've seen, we'll need to have a consumption tax rate of 53% today, and this figure goes up to 75% in 2015. This would eliminate income tax, estate tax, payroll taxes and corporate income tax, and assumes a very conservative 10% erosion of consumption due to tax incidence. (Figures are from Gale, Orszag and Hall based on the most recent proposal.)
Holy crap. I was using the Australian Goods & Services Tax. I can understand high taxation rates in countries that offer more social services, like oh, I don't know, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! but 53% That's outrageous!
FYI - I'm not saying consumption taxes are bad, and personally I would make out better with them than without them. I just wanted to clear up that 10% is a ridiculous number.
Does that replace payroll taxes as well as income taxes? Does that replace corporate and estate taxes as well? Does taht account for erosion of the consumption base? And is it an inclusive or exclusive figure? I'd be interested in seeing the details, because intuitively it seems WAY too low. If you're talking about a tax that replaces the income tax ONLY, and is inclusively calculated without any consumption erosion, then sure, I suppose I could buy that. But that's a hell of a lot of caveats (and I personally find it a bit misleading).
go to fairtax.org. they're the only group i know actively putting forth proposals to congress on this. they have a FAQ section that is helpful. i believe they address the topic of consumption erosion...and their proposals are backed by tons of economists from all over the place..of course, i could find an equal number of economists who would tell you it's an awful idea.
I think that's exactly the type of shift Greenspan would be advocating. The current trade deficit is probably unsustainable. Theoretically the deficit is driven by a combo of the high government spending and high consumer spending (aka big budget deficits and low private savings). If we push consumption forever to make our economy run, then we're going to hit a wall anyway. Instituting a tax policy which helps spur private savings should help us overall in the LONG-RUN. The problem is most economists always focus on the L-R and ignore the S-R pains. But if we're going to experience them anyway, maybe that's not such a bad idea... Vik: Why does the expected consumption tax rate increase so dramatically in the models? Is it a result of increased investment, which should eventually make products cheaper, which would then require a higher % to make up for the drop in price? Also, do the tax rates you mentioned assume all consumption is taxable (or are certain base items like clothes, food, rent, etc. exempt in that plan?)
