logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Should a general sales tax replace taxing some of the lowest, (i.e. th
Supposn
post Jun 1 2017, 04:03 AM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Should a general sales tax replace taxing some of the lowest, (i.e. threshold) portions of our taxable incomes.

I advocate rather than taxing employers’ payrolls, employees wages, and the great preponderance of net incomes, we replace some those tax revenues derived from lowest (i.e. threshold) income levels with a general sales tax. (FICA payroll taxes’ proportionally most grievous effects are upon the working poor).

Contra-intuitively, shifting from taxing individuals’ lesser annual amounts of incomes, (their threshold incomes) to be replaced by general sales tax revenues, would increase rather than decrease the proportion of high incomes earners contributions to tax revenues.
Although sales tax rates are not progressive, they can (to a very limited extent), and should be drafted to act somewhat progressively. General sales taxes themselves are not actually regressive or progressive.

Due to sales taxes comparatively simpler legal drafting, sales taxes are less prone to exceptions, and regulations that increase tax avoidance or tax evasion. Individual’s purchases rather than their filed tax returns are the more accurate indicators of individuals’ comparative incomes and wealth.

This proposed modification of federal tax policy would enable our income tax regulations to be simplified and enable revenue neutral reduction of regular income tax rates, with absolutely no net increase of tax contributions from the working poor. It will be both socially and economically net beneficial to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

This post has been edited by Supposn: Jun 1 2017, 04:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Hobbes
post Jun 1 2017, 01:49 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Supposn @ May 31 2017, 10:03 PM) *
Should a general sales tax replace taxing some of the lowest, (i.e. threshold) portions of our taxable incomes.

I advocate rather than taxing employers’ payrolls, employees wages, and the great preponderance of net incomes, we replace some those tax revenues derived from lowest (i.e. threshold) income levels with a general sales tax. (FICA payroll taxes’ proportionally most grievous effects are upon the working poor).


You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 1 2017, 05:02 PM
Post #3


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 1 2017, 09:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Supposn @ May 31 2017, 10:03 PM) *
Should a general sales tax replace taxing some of the lowest, (i.e. threshold) portions of our taxable incomes.

I advocate rather than taxing employers’ payrolls, employees wages, and the great preponderance of net incomes, we replace some those tax revenues derived from lowest (i.e. threshold) income levels with a general sales tax. (FICA payroll taxes’ proportionally most grievous effects are upon the working poor).


You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people.


https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/956...1/576828521.pdf

“Taxation and the Worlds of Welfare ...
... First, it explains the puzzling lack of correlation between economic growth and
the size of the state: if taxes hinder economic growth, then it is hard to explain how the
European states have collected taxes at a rate of nearly 50% of GDP for decades while
still posting strong economic performance. Lindert argues that this is because the
European states rely on regressive consumption taxes, which are less distortionary than
progressive income taxes, and Wilensky and Kato emphasize that consumption taxes
allow a low tax burden on capital”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////


Hobbes, if the U.S. Congress could be persuaded to adopt the “fair tax”, it would be foolishly imprudent to attempt the entire enactment within less than two years; more years would be preferable. A federal “Fair tax” is unlikely to ever be attempted while its advocates consider incremental steps of simultaneous shifting from taxing net incomes to a general sales tax, to be an unacceptable.
But if it were incrementally enacted, (particularly if the first incremental step included a significant reduction of FICA payroll taxes), the early steps would be of greater net benefit to our social and economic well-being. The net benefits due to each additional step would decrease.

There would be a point when even Congress would recognize continuing the transformation would be much less justifiable. If I’m incorrect, it’s conceivable that the federal income taxes would be eliminated.
I’m a proponent of transferring our tax revenue sources to an extent well short of a point of congressional awareness.

You correctly pointed out that low income earners spend greater, and higher income earners spend lesser proportions of their incomes (for personal expenditures). You didn’t mention that due to the exceptions, inclusions, and complexity of our income tax regulations, our progressive income taxes ain’t so progressive.

This proposed modification of federal tax policy would enable revenue neutral simplification of income tax regulations, reductions of regular income rates, consequentially increasing the tax revenue contributions of families with incomes greater than the median, and absolutely no net increase of tax contributions from the working poor. It will be both socially and economically net beneficial to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 1 2017, 05:02 PM
Post #4


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 1 2017, 09:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Supposn @ May 31 2017, 10:03 PM) *
Should a general sales tax replace taxing some of the lowest, (i.e. threshold) portions of our taxable incomes.

I advocate rather than taxing employers’ payrolls, employees wages, and the great preponderance of net incomes, we replace some those tax revenues derived from lowest (i.e. threshold) income levels with a general sales tax. (FICA payroll taxes’ proportionally most grievous effects are upon the working poor).


You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people.


https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/956...1/576828521.pdf

“Taxation and the Worlds of Welfare ...
... First, it explains the puzzling lack of correlation between economic growth and
the size of the state: if taxes hinder economic growth, then it is hard to explain how the
European states have collected taxes at a rate of nearly 50% of GDP for decades while
still posting strong economic performance. Lindert argues that this is because the
European states rely on regressive consumption taxes, which are less distortionary than
progressive income taxes, and Wilensky and Kato emphasize that consumption taxes
allow a low tax burden on capital”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////


Hobbes, if the U.S. Congress could be persuaded to adopt the “fair tax”, it would be foolishly imprudent to attempt the entire enactment within less than two years; more years would be preferable. A federal “Fair tax” is unlikely to ever be attempted while its advocates consider incremental steps of simultaneous shifting from taxing net incomes to a general sales tax, to be an unacceptable.
But if it were incrementally enacted, (particularly if the first incremental step included a significant reduction of FICA payroll taxes), the early steps would be of greater net benefit to our social and economic well-being. The net benefits due to each additional step would decrease.

There would be a point when even Congress would recognize continuing the transformation would be much less justifiable. If I’m incorrect, it’s conceivable that the federal income taxes would be eliminated.
I’m a proponent of transferring our tax revenue sources to an extent well short of a point of congressional awareness.

You correctly pointed out that low income earners spend greater, and higher income earners spend lesser proportions of their incomes (for personal expenditures). You didn’t mention that due to the exceptions, inclusions, and complexity of our income tax regulations, our progressive income taxes ain’t so progressive.

This proposed modification of federal tax policy would enable revenue neutral simplification of income tax regulations, reductions of regular income rates, consequentially increasing the tax revenue contributions of families with incomes greater than the median, and absolutely no net increase of tax contributions from the working poor. It will be both socially and economically net beneficial to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 1 2017, 05:02 PM
Post #5


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 1 2017, 09:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Supposn @ May 31 2017, 10:03 PM) *
Should a general sales tax replace taxing some of the lowest, (i.e. threshold) portions of our taxable incomes.

I advocate rather than taxing employers’ payrolls, employees wages, and the great preponderance of net incomes, we replace some those tax revenues derived from lowest (i.e. threshold) income levels with a general sales tax. (FICA payroll taxes’ proportionally most grievous effects are upon the working poor).


You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people.


https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/956...1/576828521.pdf

“Taxation and the Worlds of Welfare ...
... First, it explains the puzzling lack of correlation between economic growth and
the size of the state: if taxes hinder economic growth, then it is hard to explain how the
European states have collected taxes at a rate of nearly 50% of GDP for decades while
still posting strong economic performance. Lindert argues that this is because the
European states rely on regressive consumption taxes, which are less distortionary than
progressive income taxes, and Wilensky and Kato emphasize that consumption taxes
allow a low tax burden on capital”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////


Hobbes, if the U.S. Congress could be persuaded to adopt the “fair tax”, it would be foolishly imprudent to attempt the entire enactment within less than two years; more years would be preferable. A federal “Fair tax” is unlikely to ever be attempted while its advocates consider incremental steps of simultaneous shifting from taxing net incomes to a general sales tax, to be an unacceptable.
But if it were incrementally enacted, (particularly if the first incremental step included a significant reduction of FICA payroll taxes), the early steps would be of greater net benefit to our social and economic well-being. The net benefits due to each additional step would decrease.

There would be a point when even Congress would recognize continuing the transformation would be much less justifiable. If I’m incorrect, it’s conceivable that the federal income taxes would be eliminated.
I’m a proponent of transferring our tax revenue sources to an extent well short of a point of congressional awareness.

You correctly pointed out that low income earners spend greater, and higher income earners spend lesser proportions of their incomes (for personal expenditures). You didn’t mention that due to the exceptions, inclusions, and complexity of our income tax regulations, our progressive income taxes ain’t so progressive.

This proposed modification of federal tax policy would enable revenue neutral simplification of income tax regulations, reductions of regular income rates, consequentially increasing the tax revenue contributions of families with incomes greater than the median, and absolutely no net increase of tax contributions from the working poor. It will be both socially and economically net beneficial to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 12 2017, 08:33 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



None of what you replied with (multiple times) answers my question to you:

"You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 13 2017, 01:10 AM
Post #7


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 12 2017, 04:33 PM) *
None of what you replied with (multiple times) answers my question to you:

"You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people."


Hobbes, How can 4.55% levied upon employees’ gross wages be less regressive than an effectively 4.55% general sales tax?
Replacing that 9.1% tax upon payrolls, reduces employees' and employers' taxes by 4.55% of their payrolls, which is effectively equivalent to much greater than 4.55% reduction of their corporate income taxes that currently behave as a small concealed sales tax imbedded within all prices.

If USA payrolls are 1/3 of USA’s general sales:
The 4.55 % eliminated FICA levied upon enterprises are currently the equivalent of a 1.516% concealed sales tax and this proposal for an effective 4.55% sales tax would increase prices to consumers by slightly more than 3% of what we’re now paying.

We’d be reducing both employees and employers payroll taxes by 4.55% and the replacing sales tax of effectively 4.55% would be increasing prices to consumers by 4.55 – 1.516 = 3.034 < 3.1%
If employee and their dependents spent their entire wages for products subject to sales tax, the purchasing power of their wages would be INCREASED by more than 1.5% . How is that more regressive?

Respectfully, Supposn

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 13 2017, 01:28 AM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Supposn @ Jun 12 2017, 07:10 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 12 2017, 04:33 PM) *
None of what you replied with (multiple times) answers my question to you:

"You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people."


Ok, clearly the answer to my question is no, you did not realize this.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 14 2017, 02:00 AM
Post #9


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 12 2017, 09:28 PM) *
QUOTE(Supposn @ Jun 12 2017, 07:10 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 12 2017, 04:33 PM) *
None of what you replied with (multiple times) answers my question to you:

"You do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people."


Ok, clearly the answer to my question is no, you did not realize this.


Transcript of 9:28 PM, 12JUN2017, post within this thread:
“Hobbes, How can 4.55% levied upon employees’ gross wages be less regressive than an effectively 4.55% general sales tax?
Replacing that 9.1% tax upon payrolls, reduces employees' and employers' taxes by 4.55% of their payrolls, which is effectively equivalent to much greater than 4.55% reduction of their corporate income taxes that currently behave as a small concealed sales tax imbedded within all prices.

If USA payrolls are 1/3 of USA’s general sales:
The 4.55 % eliminated FICA levied upon enterprises are currently the equivalent of a 1.516% concealed sales tax and this proposal for an effective 4.55% sales tax would increase prices to consumers by slightly more than 3% of what we’re now paying.

We’d be reducing both employees and employers payroll taxes by 4.55% and the replacing sales tax of effectively 4.55% would be increasing prices to consumers by 4.55 – 1.516 = 3.034 < 3.1%
If employee and their dependents spent their entire wages for products subject to sales tax, the purchasing power of their wages would be INCREASED by more than 1.5% . How is that more regressive?”.
///////////////////

Hobbes, your inability to do the arithmetic is obvious. It’s no great shame; your one of the many that are unable to deal with numbers.
Respectfully, Supposn

This post has been edited by Supposn: Jun 14 2017, 02:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 14 2017, 12:27 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Supposn @ Jun 13 2017, 08:00 PM) *
Hobbes, your inability to do the arithmetic is obvious. It’s no great shame; your one of the many that are unable to deal with numbers.
Respectfully, Supposn


I can probably run circles around you in 'arithmetic', but, unlike you, I am also able to answer fairly simple questions. Which, when combined with totally unfounded and uncalled for insults, isn't conducive to any kind of debate or discussion. But I don't think you really want either, so I bid you good day.

FWIW, the answer to your question was already addressed in my question: "Hobbes, How can 4.55% levied upon employees’ gross wages be less regressive than an effectively 4.55% general sales tax?"

Answer (which was included in my question): "Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people." Ergo, the tax is applied on more of their income, and hence, it is regressive. All sales taxes are regressive, this is well known, for the simple reason I stated: Rich people spend less of their income, hence are taxed on less of their income. You should learn more about general tax policy and implications before spouting off about others inability to do arithmetic, and attempting to persuade others they should adopt your sweeping tax changes.




This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jun 14 2017, 12:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 14 2017, 03:18 PM
Post #11


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 14 2017, 08:27 AM) *
QUOTE(Supposn @ Jun 13 2017, 08:00 PM) *
Hobbes, your inability to do the arithmetic is obvious. It’s no great shame; your one of the many that are unable to deal with numbers.
Respectfully, Supposn


I can probably run circles around you in 'arithmetic', but, unlike you, I am also able to answer fairly simple questions. Which, when combined with totally unfounded and uncalled for insults, isn't conducive to any kind of debate or discussion. But I don't think you really want either, so I bid you good day.

FWIW, the answer to your question was already addressed in my question: "Hobbes, How can 4.55% levied upon employees’ gross wages be less regressive than an effectively 4.55% general sales tax?"

Answer (which was included in my question): "Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people." Ergo, the tax is applied on more of their income, and hence, it is regressive. All sales taxes are regressive, this is well known, for the simple reason I stated: Rich people spend less of their income, hence are taxed on less of their income. You should learn more about general tax policy and implications before spouting off about others inability to do arithmetic, and attempting to persuade others they should adopt your sweeping tax changes.


Hobbes, I responded to your opinion of the proposed tax modification being regressive, with an explanation as to why it is not more regressive than our currently employed FICA based upon taxing employers’ payrolls and employees’ wages.
Your response was “None of what you replied with (multiple times) answers my question to you: you do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people”.

I never posted anything indicating disagreement with your statement “Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people". My explanation is no less valid when applied to lower income purchasers spending their entire incomes for products that would subject to a federal sales tax.

You’re unable or unwilling to logically refute my explanations, but you continue inquiring if I “realize sales taxes are extremely regressive”.
I doubt if my explanation is not germane to your question or is inexplicit to the extent of your being unable to point out what within my explanation you find to be unclear. If you cannot indicate what you find to be incorrect or unclear, I suggest that may be due to your, rather than my failing. Otherwise your unwillingness to do has been your own decision.

Specifically regarding our correspondence within this thread, I believe you’ve incorrectly contended that my posts were less than respectful.

Respectfully, Supposn

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post Jun 14 2017, 03:18 PM
Post #12


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 14 2017, 08:27 AM) *
QUOTE(Supposn @ Jun 13 2017, 08:00 PM) *
Hobbes, your inability to do the arithmetic is obvious. It’s no great shame; your one of the many that are unable to deal with numbers.
Respectfully, Supposn


I can probably run circles around you in 'arithmetic', but, unlike you, I am also able to answer fairly simple questions. Which, when combined with totally unfounded and uncalled for insults, isn't conducive to any kind of debate or discussion. But I don't think you really want either, so I bid you good day.

FWIW, the answer to your question was already addressed in my question: "Hobbes, How can 4.55% levied upon employees’ gross wages be less regressive than an effectively 4.55% general sales tax?"

Answer (which was included in my question): "Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people." Ergo, the tax is applied on more of their income, and hence, it is regressive. All sales taxes are regressive, this is well known, for the simple reason I stated: Rich people spend less of their income, hence are taxed on less of their income. You should learn more about general tax policy and implications before spouting off about others inability to do arithmetic, and attempting to persuade others they should adopt your sweeping tax changes.


Hobbes, I responded to your opinion of the proposed tax modification being regressive, with an explanation as to why it is not more regressive than our currently employed FICA based upon taxing employers’ payrolls and employees’ wages.
Your response was “None of what you replied with (multiple times) answers my question to you: you do realize sales taxes are extremely regressive, right? Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people”.

I never posted anything indicating disagreement with your statement “Lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income than well off people". My explanation is no less valid when applied to lower income purchasers spending their entire incomes for products that would subject to a federal sales tax.

You’re unable or unwilling to logically refute my explanations, but you continue inquiring if I “realize sales taxes are extremely regressive”.
I doubt if my explanation is not germane to your question or is inexplicit to the extent of your being unable to point out what within my explanation you find to be unclear. If you cannot indicate what you find to be incorrect or unclear, I suggest that may be due to your, rather than my failing. Otherwise your unwillingness to do so has been your own decision.

Specifically regarding our correspondence within this thread, I believe you’ve incorrectly contended that my posts were less than respectful.

Respectfully, Supposn

This post has been edited by Supposn: Jun 14 2017, 03:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 15th, 2018 - 09:11 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.