DOGE Caucus?

[LtownTaxpayer]

I do not believe setting up Secret Service and FEMA as their own agencies will save much money. I can see the administrative state growing to fill any perceived gaps.

Dem lawmaker joins Republican-led DOGE Caucus with push to remove Secret Service from DHS

Rep. Jared Moskowitz is calling for radical changes to the Department of Homeland Security in his announcement that he is joining the DOGE Caucus.

www.foxnews.com

 

[stgislander]

I do not believe setting up Secret Service and FEMA as their own agencies will save much money. I can see the administrative state growing to fill any perceived gaps.

Dem lawmaker joins Republican-led DOGE Caucus with push to remove Secret Service from DHS

Rep. Jared Moskowitz is calling for radical changes to the Department of Homeland Security in his announcement that he is joining the DOGE Caucus.

www.foxnews.com

I think most Reps want the protection portion of SS will stay at DHS. The counterfeiting/financial crimes portion will move back to Treasury

 

[LtownTaxpayer]

I think most Reps want the protection portion of SS will stay at DHS. The counterfeiting/financial crimes portion will move back to Treasury

That kind of makes sense - especially since so many financial crimes are technology related. Trying to stay on top of that is very different from protection.

 

[Tech]

Go to national sales tax in lieu of income tax? Eliminate the IRS, just need a few treasury people to collect it from the states. Just spitballing.

 

[glhs837]

Go to national sales tax in lieu of income tax? Eliminate the IRS, just need a few treasury people to collect it from the states. Just spitballing.

But you'll cripple the tax preparation business!!!!!!

 

[Monello]

Go to national sales tax in lieu of income tax? Eliminate the IRS, just need a few treasury people to collect it from the states. Just spitballing.

But you'll cripple the tax preparation business!!!!!!

You increase the tax base from 140 million workers to 330 million US consumers plus all the foreign visitors'(2023 = 66+M) purchases.

 

[Ken King]

You increase the tax base from 140 million workers to 330 million US consumers plus all the foreign visitors'(2023 = 66+M) purchases.

Then the "black-market" kicks in and any gains are lost because you now have to fight that fight, just like the war on drugs.

 

[vraiblonde]

Then the "black-market" kicks in and any gains are lost because you now have to fight that fight, just like the war on drugs.

States that don't have income tax and a higher sales tax don't have black market problems.

 

[Merlin99]

Go to national sales tax in lieu of income tax? Eliminate the IRS, just need a few treasury people to collect it from the states. Just spitballing.

Wouldn't work. Dems are trying to get their constituents to not pay and rich people to pay more. Everyone has to buy stuff even illegals.

 

[my-thyme]

Wouldn't work. Dems are trying to get their constituents to not pay and rich people to pay more. Everyone has to buy stuff even illegals.

Which is why higher sales tax + zero income tax makes sense to me.

Make as much money as you can, pay when you spend it. Getting paid under the table, pay your taxes when you buy your sneakers.

Taxes are more when you buy the $200 instead of the $20 sneakers.

 

[Sneakers]

pay your taxes when you buy your sneakers.

 

[Clem72]

States that don't have income tax and a higher sales tax don't have black market problems.

I assume he was talking about how people keep buying illegal weed, but that's because the black market pre-existed the legal market and was MUCH cheaper.

Ain't nobody calling their dealer to save 20 cents on a bag of bagels.

 

[Hijinx]

Who ran the things Homeland Security took over before Bush made Homeland Security.?
Do away with Homeland security and let the other agencies go back to running it.
I haven't seen any of homeland Security's successes

 

[vraiblonde]

I assume he was talking about how people keep buying illegal weed, but that's because the black market pre-existed the legal market and was MUCH cheaper.

Ain't nobody calling their dealer to save 20 cents on a bag of bagels.

Or buying sketchy meat and clothing from they guy selling it out of his car.

 

[Ken King]

I assume he was talking about how people keep buying illegal weed, but that's because the black market pre-existed the legal market and was MUCH cheaper.

Ain't nobody calling their dealer to save 20 cents on a bag of bagels.

As is typical your assumption would be wrong. Replacing the Federal income tax with a consumption tax would burden those on the lower end of the economic ladder rather harshly. Estimates as to what % would be needed to replace the income tax vary considerably from a low of about 13% to 50% or more depending on what think tank is doing the calculating.

Looking at a legal product, like cigarettes, and using Florida as an example (because they have no income tax) it is estimated that about 14% of cigarettes consumed are smuggled into the state and sold illegally resulting in a loss of approximately $165 million in revenue.

 

[vraiblonde]

As is typical your assumption would be wrong. Replacing the Federal income tax with a consumption tax would burden those on the lower end of the economic ladder rather harshly. Estimates as to what % would be needed to replace the income tax vary considerably from a low of about 13% to 50% or more depending on what think tank is doing the calculating.

Looking at a legal product, like cigarettes, and using Florida as an example (because they have no income tax) it is estimated that about 14% of cigarettes consumed are smuggled into the state and sold illegally resulting in a loss of approximately $165 million in revenue.

Walk yourself back down that logic path and rethink your position. If you still stick with it I'll explain how you're wrong, but I have confidence you'll catch it.

 

[Ken King]

Walk yourself back down that logic path and rethink your position. If you still stick with it I'll explain how you're wrong, but I have confidence you'll catch it.

On what? Do you deny that there is a loss of revenue from illegal cigarette smuggling? Do you deny that there would be a greater impact upon those on the lower rung of the economic ladder by switching to a consumption tax?

 

[vraiblonde]

On what? Do you deny that there is a loss of revenue from illegal cigarette smuggling? Do you deny that there would be a greater impact upon those on the lower rung of the economic ladder by switching to a consumption tax?

 

[Clem72]

As is typical your assumption would be wrong. Replacing the Federal income tax with a consumption tax would burden those on the lower end of the economic ladder rather harshly. Estimates as to what % would be needed to replace the income tax vary considerably from a low of about 13% to 50% or more depending on what think tank is doing the calculating.

Looking at a legal product, like cigarettes, and using Florida as an example (because they have no income tax) it is estimated that about 14% of cigarettes consumed are smuggled into the state and sold illegally resulting in a loss of approximately $165 million in revenue.

Just so we are on the same page here, have you actually read any of the national sales tax proposals such as the fair tax? Were you aware that they usually have a "tax rebate" or other means of lessening the burden on the poors (under most circumstances they would receive more from the rebate than they would spend on taxable goods and services).

And okay, you used cigarettes as an example which has the same problem as weed, it has an excessive "sin" tax.

In the United States, the federal tax on cigarettes is $1.01 per pack, while the average state tax is $1.93 per pack.

So, of your $6 pack of cigarettes, $3 is tax. That's 100%. I bet you there would be no black market for cigarettes if they were $3.60 (20% tax), the black market guys have to make a profit too.

But that's fine, I will continue to shop at harry teeters while you can do your shopping from the guy who lives in a van down by the river.

 

[Clem72]

On what? Do you deny that there is a loss of revenue from illegal cigarette smuggling? Do you deny that there would be a greater impact upon those on the lower rung of the economic ladder by switching to a consumption tax?

You cherry picked one of the most highly taxed items, in most cases more than 100% taxed, that also happens to be small and easy to smuggle from low tax areas.

The national tax proposals usually come in around 20% not 50% and certainly not 100%.

Furthermore, the smugglers have to do a bit more than drive across a state line to buy from a lower tax location. They would need to actually go OUT OF THE COUNTRY or make illicit deals with the factories that produce the products or importers. That's a hell of a lot bigger burden and as such they will need to charge more money to make a profit. Probably more than the damn 20% they are trying to undercut.

Your math ain't mathing.