Economic stimulus

[vraiblonde]

My idea was to get rid of income tax across the board and add a federal sales tax on goods purchased. This way people who earn their living in illegal ways (protitution, drugs, etc) would still be paying taxes since they'd still be buying things. The rich would pay more because they buy more. The poor would pay less because they buy less. Tourists would be kicking in because they certainly buy stuff while they're here. Maybe cut a break on necessities like groceries, medications, etc. and increase the rate on luxury items?

Tear my plan apart, someone - I'm just wool-gathering and not committed to it.

 

[Frank]

I thought that made sense, too - but I think it doesn't generate enough revenue, overall. Still, it makes sense to tax people on what they BUY, not what they MAKE.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by demsformd
Ok I have seen a lot about a flat tax. The Republicans proposed this a couple of times during their "Revolution." It took away all tax credits and all left the rate at 17%. This meant that the amount for a family of 4 making $40,000 would pay an extra $2,000 in tax while a family of 4 making $160,000 would pay $20,000 less. So, we will shift the burden of the tax revenue to the middle class? Is that smart? Absolutely not.

My version of the flat tax, as I wrote earlier, would keep the personal deduction/exemption and the home mortgage interest deduction. Dems, how did you arrive at the figures you presented?

My main concern is the number of holes in the tax code. For many years, a number of corporations avoided paying any income taxes at all. Lee Iacocca was outraged that his then-boss, Henry Ford III, got off scot free each year. Meanwhile, Iacocca was paying something like 50 percent on an annual salary of $900,000 (in 1975 dollars). Iacocca tried to convince Ford that he had a civic duty to pay taxes.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
My idea was to get rid of income tax across the board and add a federal sales tax on goods purchased. This way people who earn their living in illegal ways (protitution, drugs, etc) would still be paying taxes since they'd still be buying things. The rich would pay more because they buy more. The poor would pay less because they buy less. Tourists would be kicking in because they certainly buy stuff while they're here. Maybe cut a break on necessities like groceries, medications, etc. and increase the rate on luxury items?

Vrai, a national sales tax wouldn't be a bad idea either. What kinds of luxury goods did you have in mind for the higher rate?

 

[Bruzilla]

A lot of you are falling into the Dems trap of equating economy stimulation with taxes... don't fall into that distraction. Tax cuts and economic stimulation are two different things.

Demsformd... my point was not that people spending money is not a good thing. My point is that the argument that giving money to the poor is a means of depriving the rich is laughable on its face since the money will end up with the wealthy in the end. The only difference is that the money will be invested in non-taxable issues that offer little in the way of increased production and economic growth.

Once again... giving people more money to spend, particularly the small amounts the Dems and the Republicans are talking about, is not going to do much economic stimulation. What money is actually spent on new stuff will be minimal, and we'll be talking about the same problems next year.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
What kinds of luxury goods did you have in mind for the higher rate?

Like high-end automobiles, homes larger than so many square feet - that sort of thing. Maybe even alcohol and cigarettes (which are already taxed to death). Fast food. Hell, junk food in general - chips, cookies and like that.

The problem with junk food taxes are that it's not the rich who indulge in that sort of eating - it's lower- to middle-income types. So the rich stay healthy while the poor die of heart disease. Maybe that's the idea behind making junk food so cheap and fruits and vegetables so expensive, I don't know.

 

[MGKrebs]

The main problem that I have heard about a national sales tax is that it is too volatile. Government revenues could go up or down quite dramatically. It would be tough for them to do any budgeting.

Maybe it wouldn't have to replace all income taxes, just some of it.

 

[MGKrebs]

And speaking of taxes, what is with this "child tax credit"?? I don't have any kids. And the biggest part of my property taxes go to schools. Sheesh.

 

[vraiblonde]

But Maynard! It's for the children!

 

[Makavide]

Originally posted by Tonio
But are you sure about the $10,000? I earned less than that in my first job after college, and I still paid federal income taxes. That was 14 years ago.

Tonio, my bad - based on 2001 figures a single person earning $10,000 with no deductions would have paid $383 in taxes that year

*With a filing status of single it is estimated that you owe $383 in taxes for 2001.

Adjusted Gross Income $10,000
Taxable Income $2,550
Total Federal Tax $383
Withholding & Payments $0
Tax Due $383

(*Information based on msnmoney web site)

Sorry for overstating - I might have gotten carried away because of the "it's not fair"

Mak

 

[MGKrebs]

Where the heck is the homeless/media bias thread?

 

[Makavide]

who pays the taxes

The Bush Tax Cut Program – Feeding the Goose …
Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003

If you cut taxes across the board by 10 percent, for example, the person who pays the most in taxes gets the biggest break. That's called fairness, except on the battlefields of the class war, where it is called "tax cuts for the rich."

Who pays income taxes? According to the IRS, using figures from the year 2000:

The top 1%: those with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of more than $313,469 pay 37.42 percent of all income tax collected.

The top 5%: Those with an AGI of $128,336 pay 56.47 percent of all taxes.

The top 10%: Those who earn $92,144 or more pay 67.33 percent.

The top 25%: Those with an AGI of $55,225 or more pay 84.01 percent.

The top 50%: Those earning $27,682 or more pay 96.09 percent.

The bottom 50%: Those with and AGI of less than $27,682 pay a mere 3.91 percent of all taxes.
Consider the fact that those in the top brackets are, for the most part, the people who do the most investing, start the most new businesses and produce the most jobs – the so-called rich the NSDP wants us to hate and insists should be penalized by depriving them of part of the very income they use to help create a booming economy.
This is called killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The full article
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/211424.shtml

 

[SmallTown]

I say tax the poor like crazy.. they'll get so frustrated that they will kill themsevles, then we can distrubute their public assistance to us middle class folks.. tax free of course

 

[MGKrebs]

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I say tax the poor like crazy.. they'll get so frustrated that they will kill themsevles, then we can distrubute their public assistance to us middle class folks.. tax free of course

Now, I'll agree with you on that one! Anyone see 60 Minutes II last night? They reported on the bread lines in southeastern Ohio. 800+ people queued up for free food. They compared it to the Great Depression and got plenty of sound bites of people complaining about how tough the times are. It was a real sob-fest.


Where do they find these people????

Full text here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/08/60II/main535732.shtml

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by Steve
Now, I'll agree with you on that one! Anyone see 60 Minutes II last night? They reported on the bread lines in southeastern Ohio. 800+ people queued up for free food. They compared it to the Great Depression and got plenty of sound bites of people complaining about how tough the times are. It was a real sob-fest.


Where do they find these people????

You forgot to mention the majority standing in that bread line could stand to go without a few meals (aka, they was roly poly)! (kids included!)

 

[MGKrebs]

Legally enforced diets! It has potential! Or at least they should serve less fattening foods in those "bread lines".

I say only give away vegetables!

 

[Christy]

And now that you had to go there!

I'm gonna vent a bit. The majority of these people standing in the bread line (with their kids) were disgraceful! We were pretty stinkin poor at times growing up, but at least my family had some pride! My father would have scrubbed toilets before ever taking a handout. We were raised that no matter how poor we were, there was always someone much poorer that needed that food (like the truly handicapped, or families who's father just died etc..)

The one portly chic standing in the breadline was a registered nurse, who was taking time off from work to stay home with her baby! Now is that needy? NO! That's greedy!

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Legally enforced diets! It has potential! Or at least they should serve less fattening foods in those "bread lines".

I say only give away vegetables!

The point is Maynard, these folks aren't starving. They are taking advantage of the system!

 

[SmallTown]

I wouldn't say they are taking advantage of the system, just using what is offered.. The widespread offering is the problem.. Not that I feel this type of thing isn't needed, it just needs to be handled a little differently... $10 isn't anything to any of us, but if someone was on the side of the street handing out $10 bills, we would probably all grab one.

 

[chuckster]

(Washington, D.C.) - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today applauded President Bush's $674 billion economic stimulus as a positive step towards economic stimulation and tax simplification.

"The president's proposal to end double taxation of dividends and accelerate the 2001 tax rate cuts makes economic sense and will be a win for taxpayers, investors, and the economy as a whole," CCAGW President Tom Schatz said. "We urge Congress to move quickly to enact these reasonable proposals, which amount to $67 billion annually, a drop in the bucket in a $10 trillion economy."

CCAGW also countered those who claim the U.S. cannot afford tax reduction.

"Over the next decade, the federal government will spend about $30 trillion by current estimates," Schatz continued. "This stimulus package represents approximately 2.2 percent of total outlays, which will only be missed by the big-spending status quo in Washington. The bottom line is, without strong economic growth and job creation, budgets will never balance. With growth, fewer people depend on government services, more receipts flow into Uncle Sam's coffers, and balance is restored. While the President's plan is substantial, the economy would be given an even greater charge by including a reduction in the capital gains tax, as well as making the 2001 tax cuts permanent."

"In addition to the stimulus plan, CCAGW urges President Bush to build on the bold steps he has taken to restrain spending and make additional reductions in federal outlays," Schatz continued. "The President should continue to focus attention on the thousands of outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and poorly administered government programs and agencies. By CAGW's tally, across-the-board government reform would save $1.2 trillion over the next five years alone. The White House should not only fight to reinvigorate the economy, but restore America's government to a more appropriate size and shape."


The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.