Greenspan Touts Idea of a Consumption Tax

[Kizzy]

Interesting

``A simpler tax code would reduce the considerable resources devoted to complying with current tax laws, and the freed up resources could be used for more productive purposes,'' Greenspan said.

I know this has been under some discusion for years, but I just don't see it happening? :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

Professional lobbying...

...over the last 20-30 years has become the business of Washington DC.

In turn, Congressmen and Senators spend more time satisfying lobbyists who support them. The primary thing a lobbyist wants is a specific tax rule that allows him to justify to his clients that he is doing something for their money.

Politicians in turn provide the arcane rule to justify the support of the lobbyist.

The moment we get rid of the absurdity that is our campaing finance rules then that will be the moment politicians are no longer beholden to lobbyists and that is the moment they will stop adding pages to the tax code and that is the moment some form of rational, sane tax policy can start to be discussed.

What we need: If you are an actual voter you can give all you want to any politician and he must disclose you and the amount right away. If you can't vote (IE you are a lobby group or union or corporation) you cannot give one dime to any politician.

This frees the pols from the money dance and forces lobbyists to take to the airwaves and try and convince we, the people, that they have a good idea and therefore write your congressmen and let them know how you feel about this great idea. Politicians beholden to the people who VOTE for them, not beholden to entities, lobbyists, whom, at present, own them.

Imagine.

In other words, don't get too excited about serious tax policy reform.

 

[vraiblonde]

I see Mr. Greenspan is a fan of my forum posts.

Switching from an income tax to a consumption tax would generate huge opposition from Democrats, who argue that taxing food and other goods would fall hardest on the poor.

Yes, because poor people buy so much more than rich people. Tards.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'm completely against a consumption tax. One need not look further than the plans to implement driving taxes out on the Left coast to see that a consumption tax would screw us over.

My thought process is that the initial consumption tax would be based on average spending of today's society. Once it's in place, people start buying less, not a whole lot less, but less, so there's less tax dollars going to Washington than expected. In response, they increase the tax rate, and sales go down further. Now the idea of a minimal income tax comes up... just enough to support the consumption tax until Americans acclimate their spending habits, then the income tax will get abolished. And before you know it we're paying a lessened consumption and a never-to-go-away income tax.

 

[Kizzy]

Is there any idea on how this would work? I'm somewhat clueless. Right now we pay 5% on goods, so has anyone said it could be 10%? Or any clues as to the plan?

 

[Kizzy]

I see Mr. Greenspan is a fan of my forum posts.


Yes, because poor people buy so much more than rich people. Tards.

I thought of you when I read that, but the thing is, if this is the only reason not to do something, then it is a lame answer. IMO :shrug:

 

[Tonio]

Yes, because poor people buy so much more than rich people. Tards.

You're right. I think the Democrats' argument is ridiculous, because most people tend to spend in proportion to their income. Plus, I suspect any national sales tax would have an exemption for food, like many state sales taxes.

 

[DoWhat]

You're right. I think the Democrats' argument is ridiculous, because most people tend to spend in proportion to their income. Plus, I suspect any national sales tax would have an exemption for food, like many state sales taxes.

Great sig.

 

[itsbob]

I thought of you when I read that, but the thing is, if this is the only reason not to do something, then it is a lame answer. IMO :shrug:

You have to think about how many people, and lawyers this would put out of business. No vile tax code, no loopholes, not 1040's no schedules.. A lot of people make their living off of our insane tax code.

 

[Kizzy]

You have to think about how many people, and lawyers this would put out of business. No vile tax code, no loopholes, not 1040's no schedules.. A lot of people make their living off of our insane tax code.

Oh yea, and a good majority of the IRS, unless they deal with business. I can understand the reasons for wanting it to be simple, but without some idea of the plan, it is hard to decide if it is fair or not.
:shrug:

 

[itsbob]

Oh yea, and a good majority of the IRS, unless they deal with business. I can understand the reasons for wanting it to be simple, but without some idea of the plan, it is hard to decide if it is fair or not.
:shrug:

Just saying, a national sales tax will bever be implemented, NOT if it abolishes the income tax. TOO many rich lawyers with a lot of clout out there that have made their money from the tax laws.. They'd never let it happen.

 

[Kizzy]

That is exactly what I think. It will never ever happen, even if it is a good idea.

 

[Bruzilla]

Flat tax is the way to go. The consumption tax also opens the door wide open to taxing puchases from other states and Internet commerce as a whole.

 

[vraiblonde]

The consumption tax also opens the door wide open to taxing puchases from other states and Internet commerce as a whole.

Explain that to me. The state part, I mean - the internet part is self-explanatory.

If it's a federal sales tax, it would stand to reason that it would be nationwide. Like, the feds would set a sales tax rate, then the states would add to it according to their own needs (or wants). So while MD might have a 10% sales tax (5/5), FL might have a 12% sales tax (5/7).

We just filed our taxes for VEI - you should see this thing. And we're a SMALL business. I can only imagine what other companies' tax returns look like. It shouldn't be like that. We've paid our employment taxes throughout the year, bought a bit of equipment that we paid sales tax on, sent out our W-2s. Instead of having to file this ridiculously long tax form, everything we've done over the year should be (is) already on record with the IRS and the Comptroller.

Equipment depreciation, in particular, is a major bugaboo with me. We bought it, paid the sales tax on it, and now we have to declare it as property so they can tax it again. It's like your house - why should you have to pay property taxes every year? You should pay a tax when you buy the thing, not each and every single year you own it.

 

[Larry Gude]

The way to go is uber simple...

...we do a di-cennial (is that a word?) census for multiple reasons.

I say take that number, currently about 300,000,000, and send everybody a bill for their portion. Not businesses. We, the people.

Example: Current budget $2.5 trillion. That means I get a bill for my household of $8,333 per head or 5 in our case or $41,000. Then do state.

We can't afford that. So, either my income has to go up, which it will if businesses pay no tax or the federal budget must go down. Or I assume debt on what I can't pay. Or some combination.

Guess what? I'm a concerned citizen! I'm gonna hold my reps responsible!

Every single dollar that the government spends that does NOT come from we, the people, is a corrupt dollar. It is a dollar that something (not someone, someones are taxpayers) is owed something for.

Open your mind and think about it. Yes, this sounds radical in this day and age but it is suppossed to be we, the people not we, the corporations and lobbyists and special interest groups. It's suppossed to be OUR government yet we want some else to pay for it?

If you're OK with that then don't complain about corporations and special interests controlling YOUR government; they paid for it.

The most important feature of existing tax policy is that the money does NOT come straight from your wallet because if you don't write a check for it you won't care. That is textbook corruption.

Think about it: Do we have witholding to save you the trouble of writing a check? Ha. I submit we try just one year or one month or one pay period paying direct and we'll see how inconvenient it really is. We'll see who does or doesn't care then.

Living pay check to paycheck? Is perhaps your mortgage or paying off your credit cards a better use of what the government takes each pay check?

Or is it better to keep you in fiscal straights just as long as the government gets theirs first?

Something like 1/2 of the dollars going to the treausry ever year are NOT from you and I. That means hourly wages and salaries double if we pay it all.

If there are any questions on how to implement this Visa or mastercard can show the feds how. my mortgage company seems to have a pretty good handle on it as well.

You want that kind of power or are you better off as an indentured servent?