[RenegadeRick]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346

I took their survey and their picks for me and they suggested for me, in order

1. Ron Paul
2. Mike Gravel
3. Hillary Clinton

Now, I disliked all of the options on Healthcare Reform and did not consider the last question on type of experience a relevant criteria, but who knows, maybe you will.

Who do they suggest for you? Does this confirm your choice or challenge it?

 

[blue]

Another crappy one.

1. Mike Gravel
2. Dennis Kucinich
3. Ron Paul

National Healthcare System=the way.

 

[X3pilot]

Cute interactive web page, but too few questions to establish a criteria and it bases your responses to cnadidates speeches, not anything they have actually done. They are all saying anything they think we want to hear.

Agreed, last question is just stupid.

But, here they were but it ain't how I'm voting!

Ron Paul
Fred Thompson
Tancredo

I think it sent me towards Ron Paul because I clicked consumption tax.

 

[blue]

It did me because I did so much hating on iRawk.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I think it sent me towards Ron Paul because I clicked consumption tax.

Isn't that Huckabee's position?

 

[Zark]

Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd

Too short a list of questions if you ask me

 

[LordOpie]

1. Steven Colbert
2. Bears
3. Ham sandwich

 

[Echo]

Mike Gravel
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich

 

[reflux]

1. Steven Colbert
2. Ditka
3. Ham sandwich

Ditka>Bears

 

[LordOpie]

Ditka>Bears

not those Bears.

It's a Colbert joke. sorry.

 

[BadDNA]

1. Bacon (The delicious food, not Kevin.)
2. Bacon (Cake, made from but not to be confused with 1.)
3. Bacon (Sandwich, again, made from 1, not to be confused with this Sandwich either.)

 

[X3pilot]

Isn't that Huckabee's position?

Yep, I think you're right, but doesn't RP support the flat tax or are the two considered different?

 

[Toshi]

1. Kucinich
2. Gravel
3. Dodd

 

[RenegadeRick]

Yep, I think you're right, but doesn't RP support the flat tax or are the two considered different?

Paul is in favor of eliminating the IRS and income taxes altogether. This would require spending cuts and probably some kind of use tax/fee structure as well. A use tax and a flat tax are different things. A flat tax is where everyone pays the same tax rate (not amount) regardless of income. A use tax is based upon consumption. Theoretically, the rich consume more and therefore would bear a greater tax burden.

A use tax is the type of taxation I support since it collects revenue from wealth and not from the labors of the working class.

 

[MikeD]

Theoretically, the rich consume more and therefore would bear a greater tax burden.

This is where I'm confused. If I'm poor, nearly all of my money goes to "consumption." I have to buy the things I need to stay alive, and that takes most/all of my money.

If I'm rich (especially if I'm rich and smart), I may spend more (in dollars, not proportionally) on both necessities and luxuries, but I tend to save and/or invest a substantial portion of my income, which helps keep me rich.

So, proportionally, I'd think poor people would be taxed proportionally more by some kind of consumption tax, no? Obviously, this would be the case with a straight-up sales tax...does "consumption tax" avoid this somehow?

 

[Silver]

This is where I'm confused. If I'm poor, nearly all of my money goes to "consumption." I have to buy the things I need to stay alive, and that takes most/all of my money.

If I'm rich (especially if I'm rich and smart), I may spend more (in dollars, not proportionally) on both necessities and luxuries, but I tend to save and/or invest a substantial portion of my income, which helps keep me rich.

So, proportionally, I'd think poor people would be taxed proportionally more by some kind of consumption tax, no? Obviously, this would be the case with a straight-up sales tax...does "consumption tax" avoid this somehow?

Usually there is some kind of refund dreamt up for people with a lower income.

Which of course means you can't get rid of the IRS...because someone needs to check and process that info. It also erodes your tax base. Estimates on how much differ, of course.

 

[MikeD]

A use tax is the type of taxation I support since it collects revenue from wealth and not from the labors of the working class.

So you're kind of a populist, libertarian socialist?

 

[X3pilot]

In PA, you do not pay sales tax on unprepared food items, necessary items (person hygiene) or clothing.

Assuming this is figured in to the candidates plans, it is meant to tax consumption of other goods. In other words, the government will shelter tax wise what you MUSt have, but tax what you WANt to have.
But, there is fuel tax on heating oil and gasoline, so I don't know.

Most people won't say it, but the want for a national sales tax stems from seeing people buy good groceries with food stamps, live in subsidized housing and driving SUVs and buying $200 Air Jordans at the mall. That and even if you're here illegally, you're getting paid and have to buy tortillas, so you get them that way..

 

[ohio]

MikeD is right. A consumption tax hits the poor the hardest, and basically makes being wealthy tax free. Nice work, Rick, you fascist.

 

[kidwoo]

MikeD is right. A consumption tax hits the poor the hardest, and basically makes being wealthy tax free. Nice work, Rick, you fascist.

........and a little more light is shed on the continuing problems in american voter education

 

[MMike]

Kucinich
Gravel
Paul


AGAIN, I match with Kucinich....interesting...

 

[ohio]

Here's some napkin math for y'all:
Our federal budget is in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion.
Total consumption is 71% of our ~$13 Trillion GDP or $10 Trillion
For the consumption tax to generate sufficient revenues for our government, infrastructure, and defense to not collapse, we would need a consumption tax in the neighborhood of 20%,right? Sounds great! Only 20%!

1) I make $25,000/year. I live month to month so it all gets spent. I pay $5,000 in taxes or 20% of my income
2) I make $500,000/year, and have put $5M in the bank which earns me another cool $250,000/year in interest. I struggle to spend more than $350,000 per year, and much of it I spend overseas because everything is 20% cheaper there and I lead a jetset lifestyle. On the $250,000 I spend in the US I pay $50,000 in taxes or 7% of my income.

That seems fair right?

Note: this does not account for the black-market, and all the cross border shopping, and exceptions to the tax (because you know there will be some) and even assuming it doesn't create massive depression in any city within 100 miles of the border, the reality is that the consumption tax needs to be closer to 30%.

Peachy. Just peachy. Viva la resistance!

 

[skinny mike]

gravel
kucinich
biden

 

[RenegadeRick]

MikeD is right. A consumption tax hits the poor the hardest, and basically makes being wealthy tax free. Nice work, Rick, you fascist.

As X3pilot suggested, a consumption tax does not need to be flat. Necessities could be tax free and niceties could be tax heavy. It only stands to reason that the rich would consume more niceties.

Also, in your napkin math, you assume an income for the rich. Income does not make one rich. Wealth makes one rich. What about the folks that have tons of the wealth stashed away, but have no income (because they manage their finances in such a manner that the profits get rolled back into their investments and are not paid out as income). If one has no income, how can they pay an income tax?

Even in your example the rich guy paid 10x the amount in taxes as the poor guy did. And for your example of a 30% tax rate, that is roughly what I (and many others) pay already in income tax, so what is the difference?

With the consumption tax concepts I describe here, and are supported by your calculations, the rich pay 10x as much as the poor and certainly more than nothing, which is what many of the wealthiest Americans pay in income taxes today.

 

[ohio]

As X3pilot suggested, a consumption tax does not need to be flat. Necessities could be tax free and niceties could be tax heavy. It only stands to reason that the rich would consume more niceties.

Good thing the rich have a much easier time buying those things overseas, eh? You would have to tax luxury items at 100% or more to make that work.

Also, in your napkin math, you assume an income for the rich. Income does not make one rich. Wealth makes one rich. What about the folks that have tons of the wealth stashed away, but have no income (because they manage their finances in such a manner that the profits get rolled back into their investments and are not paid out as income). If one has no income, how can they pay an income tax?

You are familiar with the capital gains tax, yes? You can't liquidate wealth (at which point any increase becomes "income") without it being taxed right now. You CAN liquidate it without it being taxed under a consumption tax. I promise you, you are taxing their wealth much more with capital gains tax than you ever would with a consumption tax.

Even in your example the rich guy paid 10x the amount in taxes as the poor guy did. And for your example of a 30% tax rate, that is roughly what I (and many others) pay already in income tax, so what is the difference?

And under the current structure that rich guy would have paid about $300k (or 60x what the poor guy paid). Face it, you are shifting the burden down. There is no way around it.

certainly more than nothing, which is what many of the wealthiest Americans pay in income taxes today.

You're on crack. There are examples of the wealthy evading their taxes. This is called "illegal" and I wholeheartedly believe we should go after those people with the biggest stick we can find, but they are an exception not a rule. If all you want to do is close loopholes, you've got my support, but right now, if they play by the rules the wealthy pay a lot of taxes.

These was the quickest link I could find:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
(caveat: didn't read through to see what their opinions are, but the tables and facts would be hard to manipulate)
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

Table 6 is the most relevant one.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Good thing the rich have a much easier time buying those things overseas, eh? You would have to tax luxury items at 100% or more to make that work.

There are limits to how much stuff can be brought into the country duty free. Last I recall this was $800. Given the cost of international travel, this does not seem to be an enlightened path to overall savings.

You are familiar with the capital gains tax, yes? You can't liquidate wealth (at which point any increase becomes "income") without it being taxed right now. You CAN liquidate it without it being taxed under a consumption tax. I promise you, you are taxing their wealth much more with capital gains tax than you ever would with a consumption tax.

The current capital gains tax rate is 15%. This is the lowest income tax rate on the books. And even if you can liquidate wealth, the consumption tax will apply when money is spent. What good is simply possessing money? It is merely a worthless fiat currency. Money has value when it is exchanged for goods and services. And so what generates more revenue, a 15% capital gains tax or a 30% consumption tax?

And under the current structure that rich guy would have paid about $300k (or 60x what the poor guy paid). Face it, you are shifting the burden down. There is no way around it.

According to my calculations I come up with 150k (500k*.3) + 37.5 (250k*.15) = 187.5k for his income tax, but your calculations on the consumption tax assume a relatively low rate of consumption. and also lack consideration of a variable tax rate. I dislike repeating myself, but niceties could be taxed more heavily than necessities. Regardless, at some point money will be spent, and at that time Uncle Sam gets his cut.

You're on crack. There are examples of the wealthy evading their taxes. This is called "illegal" and I wholeheartedly believe we should go after those people with the biggest stick we can find, but they are an exception not a rule. If all you want to do is close loopholes, you've got my support, but right now, if they play by the rules the wealthy pay a lot of taxes.

These was the quickest link I could find:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
(caveat: didn't read through to see what their opinions are, but the tables and facts would be hard to manipulate)
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

Again, this is my key point on the whole thing. Income is not wealth. All these figures consider income to be wealth and it is not. Income is income. No more, no less. There simply is no other way to track who paid how much income taxes without figuring it out based on income. And yet the wealthiest Americans, even wealthier than this top 1%, pay no income taxes because the have no income. It is not illegal to not pay taxes on income one does not have.

With the national debt the way it is, it would not be a big deal if the decided upon tax rates don't produce the right mix of revenue initially. They could always be adjusted until an equilibrium is reached, and the Fed can just print more money to cover the interest.

 

[Silver]

As X3pilot suggested, a consumption tax does not need to be flat. Necessities could be tax free and niceties could be tax heavy. It only stands to reason that the rich would consume more niceties.

And thus hugely eroding your tax base...

Do a search, I used to have fun kicking around Damn True on a flat tax and I think this came up.

 

[ohio]

You didn't address the more important point that luxury items would have to be taxed at rates of 100% or higher.

The current capital gains tax rate is 15%. This is the lowest income tax rate on the books.

That's because it's already taxed once when it's first acquired as income (minus IRA or 401k, which is insignificant for the bracket we are considering). Are you just pretending to not know this stuff to upset me, or do you really not know it?

According to my calculations I come up with 150k (500k*.3) + 37.5 (250k*.15) = 187.5k for his income tax, but your calculations on the consumption tax assume a relatively low rate of consumption.

Last time I checked 187.5/5=37.5X>10X. Even with some very wishful thinking regarding the income tax rates, and the rates of consumption, I challenge you to make this wealthy individual pay more taxes under your model than the current one.

Again, this is my key point on the whole thing. Income is not wealth. All these figures consider income to be wealth and it is not.

Sigh. No, they consider income to be income (are you going to start taxing people for savings?). However, you are considering consumption to be wealth, and that could not be more proposterous. Seriously, just show me in any manner that actually subscribes to basic mathematics how you are possibly going to tax wealthy people more under your model.

 

[RenegadeRick]

You didn't address the more important point that luxury items would have to be taxed at rates of 100% or higher.

I am not certain this is true. In your previous calculations you suggested that our current revenue stream could be produced by a 20-30% tax rate on current consumption. I don't know what the right levels on specific items might need to be to make this work.

That's because it's already taxed once when it's first acquired as income (minus IRA or 401k, which is insignificant for the bracket we are considering). Are you just pretending to not know this stuff to upset me, or do you really not know it?

It isn't income until it becomes income. Therefore it never had an opportunity to be taxed, and there is no questioning that capital gains is the lowest tax rate on income there is.

Last time I checked 187.5/5=37.5X>10X.

True, but it isn't 60x as you claimed.

Sigh. No, they consider income to be income (are you going to start taxing people for savings?). However, you are considering consumption to be wealth, and that could not be more proposterous.

In some ways capital gains are taxes on savings, since the savings (or investments) is what produced that income. Consumption isn't wealth any more than income is. The point is not everyone needs income, but everyone must consume.

Seriously, just show me in any manner that actually subscribes to basic mathematics how you are possibly going to tax wealthy people more under your model.

Even with some very wishful thinking regarding the income tax rates, and the rates of consumption, I challenge you to make this wealthy individual pay more taxes under your model than the current one.

Why do people with high incomes need to pay more taxes than they do now? Why is this a requirement?

What other means do you suggest to have wealthy people without incomes to contribute their fair share?

 

[bean]

What other means do you suggest to have wealthy people without incomes to contribute their fair share?

How can they be wealthy without some sort of income? If they inherit the money there's inheritance tax which is really just an income tax. If they don't have a job, and didn't inherit it, it's coming from somewhere.

 

[RenegadeRick]

How can they be wealthy without some sort of income? If they inherit the money there's inheritance tax which is really just an income tax. If they don't have a job, and didn't inherit it, it's coming from somewhere.

People can just have wealth, maybe they earned it, or inherited it, or whatever, but it was long ago, they may have paid some sort of taxes at the time and yet they continue to consume government services on an ongoing basis.

This example is based upon our current system:
Say the guy in Ohio's example had no job and lived off of the 250k interest generated on his 5M in the bank. He would pay 37.5k in income taxes at the 15% rate since this is derived from capital gains. But someone who worked at a job that paid 250k a year would pay around 75k in income taxes since this is at about a 30% rate. Plus the working guy has additional required expenses of commuting, dry cleaning, and so on. Any savings (beyond a 401k, etc.) he is able to make is based upon after-tax dollars and makes it that much more difficult to accumulate wealth.

With a consumption based tax system these individuals would pay comparable amounts in taxes since they would consume approximately the same. The wealthy guy would still probably end up paying less than the working guy, but it would be much closer than paying half as much which is what happens under our current system. If the working guy saved his money instead of spending it, his tax burden would be reduced accordingly.

 

[ohio]

It isn't income until it becomes income. Therefore it never had an opportunity to be taxed, and there is no questioning that capital gains is the lowest tax rate on income there is.

Wow, I'm done. I'm not going to argue tax law with someone who doesn't understand the basic principles.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Wow, I'm done. I'm not going to argue tax law with someone who doesn't understand the basic principles.

o'rly? I didn't think we were discussing tax law, but rather tax policy.

And based on what you quoted from me, are you trying to say that income derived from interest paid on savings was in some way income before before income was earned as interest? Ask any accountant and they can tell you it is the moment that interest is paid upon an account when it becomes income and not one moment before. It makes me wonder who is the one who does not understand the basics.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Apparently, I have assumed incorrectly on Ron Paul's position on taxes. I assumed we would need some kind of consumption tax of some kind to support the government. Ron Paul says all we need is fiscal responsibility.

Ron Paul will eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing.

 

[manimal]

1. Guliani
2. Huckabee
3. McCain


pretty close i guess, except huckabee is my first choice.

 

[RenegadeRick]

1. Guliani
2. Huckabee
3. McCain

pretty close i guess, except huckabee is my first choice.

I honestly didn't think that people with those kinds of preferences actually existed and it was just the media lying to us that there were people who might prefer Giuliani.

So I guess you hate poor people because Huckabee's consumption tax ideas hurt the poor as irrefutably proven by Ohio. I also like Huckabee, but he is too pro war for my tastes. As a matter of fact, all of the candidates listed there are pro war.

Now that it has been made public that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, how much longer do you think we should wait before we invade? Of course, if Huckabee sends in Chuck Norris it would be over pretty fast.

 

[X3pilot]

I don't think we're at the point of saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. The NIE, which is heavily biased against the White house for whatever reason, simply stated that their weapons program is not active right now.

I want a president who is pro war for the right reasons and at the right time. ex. when all other options have failed and attack on US citizens is ineviatable. Thus, the Department of Defense

 

[RenegadeRick]

I don't think we're at the point of saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. The NIE, which is heavily biased against the White house for whatever reason, simply stated that their weapons program is not active right now.

Um, yeah. That is exactly what the NIE says. The Iranians do not have a nuclear weapons program. They had a program and ended it four years ago. The real question in my mind is why is the Bush administration biased against the truth?

I want a president who is pro war for the right reasons and at the right time. ex. when all other options have failed and attack on US citizens is ineviatable. Thus, the Department of Defense

Me too. That is why I back Ron Paul and not the rest of the Republican warhawks who still want to invade Iran in spite of the evidence that they do not have a nuclear weapons program.

 

[X3pilot]

rick, I usually agree with a lot of what you post but I gotta call on this. If Iran stopped a nuclear weapons program, they not only had a program but still have it. I stopped watching VHS porno programs years ago but they're in my garage. Just because they stopped the program, you just don't throw the program out. Plus, Britain and others are questioing the validity of some of the NIE statements.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating attacking Iran or any other country, but I'm not ready for this country to look to Iran and go "Oh, our bad, never mind, keep enriching uranium." They are a country that has threatened to wipe another country off the face of the Earth. not cool.

 

[MikeD]

A nuclear weapons program has three components: Production of fissile material, weaponization of fissile material, and delivery of completed weapon.

Apparently Iran has only stopped their weaponization efforts, which are the easiest part of the program. The hard part is enriching uranium (or obtaining plutonium) to be weaponized, which is the part that comes under "peaceful nuclear power."

That said, WAR IS A RETARDED PROSPECT. And for Iran, this program is win-win. They get to oppose the US and draw it out, obtain something in exchange for stopping the nuke program (or pretending to stop it), and/or actually obtaining a nuke at the same time.