The Stimulus Package
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
You are referencing A PLAN, not the only option that exists. Obviously, THE PLAN could be adjusted to achieve the desired result. Perhaps more prebate for folks in the 15 - 200 income bracket?
What loophole would that be? You go to the store, you spend money, you pay tax. Simple.
What you fail to realize is that it is not only the wealthy who avoid their fair share income taxes. There are also people who work in, well, let's call them "cash businesses." Because these folks do not declare their incomes, they also fail to carry their fair share of the burden.
I really doubt that a lot of tax money is lost because of drug dealers, it is a pretty ridiculous argument.
Prebates would cost 600-700 billion a year just for the 15000 and under crowd according to the Treasury, how much would we spend on prebates?
Prebates would cost 600-700 billion a year just for the 15000 and under crowd according to the Treasury, how much would we spend on prebates?
Wages have stagnated for the past 30 years, so it isn't entirely the middle class' fault
The "Fair Tax" is beneficial to those who don't have to spend all of their monthly income on goods and services. If you make $200k per year but only spend $100k, you're currently saving that extra $100k/year. Right now you have to pay income tax on it, and then it's yours to do with what you like. Under a Use Tax, you *don't* have to pay taxes on that $100k that you're saving/investing/etc, so the amount of money that you're actually paying taxes on drops in half.
For someone making $50k/year but spending $50k/year he's still paying taxes on all 50k, or 100% of his annual income. The problem is that instead of him being at a 7-8% annualized tax rate, he's now with the rest of the country paying 30%. Yes, it would be an incentive to spend less and save more, but at a pretty brutal cost (especially if he can't save more as he has a wife, kids, mortgage, etc).
For someone making $50k/year but spending $50k/year he's still paying taxes on all 50k, or 100% of his annual income. The problem is that instead of him being at a 7-8% annualized tax rate, he's now with the rest of the country paying 30%. Yes, it would be an incentive to spend less and save more, but at a pretty brutal cost (especially if he can't save more as he has a wife, kids, mortgage, etc).
are you denying that there are folks out there with undeclared income? that is a ridiculous statement.
you should re-read your article. prebates go out to everyone in that plan.
and how much would we spend? how about nothing? it is all about perspective. increased revenue offsets initial expenditures.
In the plan Sammy posted, the chart shows this guy with a small change in outlay, not the triple level change you suggest. Again, you forget the upfront kickback included in the plan. He would not be paying taxes on all 50k.
On the subject of "undeclared income"
Why not legalize recreational drug use...sin tax the hell out of it, tax the manufacture and sale, control the production (Nothing will f@ck it up like the FDA), de-glamorize it to the kids, take organized crime right out of, frees LE to focus on "real" crimes...win-win-win...
Why not legalize recreational drug use...sin tax the hell out of it, tax the manufacture and sale, control the production (Nothing will f@ck it up like the FDA), de-glamorize it to the kids, take organized crime right out of, frees LE to focus on "real" crimes...win-win-win...
^^^Jesus wouldn't want that...
he seems to be getting desperate.
his live performance last evening, at the little virginia spa retreat was absolutely hilarious.
screaming at us with threatening overtones ???
hardly the stuff of someone trying desperately to come across as presidential.
more like dictatorial.
his live performance last evening, at the little virginia spa retreat was absolutely hilarious.
screaming at us with threatening overtones ???
hardly the stuff of someone trying desperately to come across as presidential.
more like dictatorial.
Last edited:
And under your use tax, those ultra-wealthy with no net income
(say a bad year for the market) would actually get PAID. Nice work.
Additionally, you're actually paying poor people for being poor. WWRPD?
We've been through this before. Anyone with a remotely subtle understanding of economics believes the Consumption Tax to be a horrible idea. Most people with any credibility as economists see no net benefit to the flat tax unless you add so many loopholes and exceptions and cuts as to turn it into a progressive tax that rivals the current one in complexity.
The progressive income tax is the right way to do it. No doubt our current tax code is overly complex and as a result has far too many loopholes, but the fundamental principle is the right one, and it is currently working about as well in the US as anywhere in the world.
I don't see how anyone is getting paid in this plan. They are just preimbursed for taxes that they will pay based on their consumption. To understand the idea, you can't simply look at one point in time. You have to look at the year in its entirety.
And what is the prebate based on? Income, or expectation of income. So you still have people trying to calculate their... wait for it... net income. And if someone ultrawealthy has a bad year, no net income, they get the same pre-bate as someone at the poverty level. Higher in fact because their income is zero. So unlike today where they wouldn't pay tax that year, under your system they actually get PAID out of everyone elses taxes.
Look, I understand that you want to like this tax. After all, it's "fair" which is so much better than "unfair." but it doesn't work. Ever. It's no fairer than the clean air act is clean, or no child left behind doesn't leave any children behind.
You've been fooled. Fooled by people playing with your tender emotions and hopeful tendencies.
No, it is based on expectations of consumption.
which is derived.... ?
from the expectation that people need to buy CRAP to survive.
In the plan Sammy posted, there is the idea of a prebate which would offset the tax impact to those at the poverty line. But get this, here is the crazy part... everyone gets the prebate. So it is not based on income in any way.
All y'all better RTFA.
And since that subtlety seems to keep escaping you cats, let me complicate things further, by stating that I am not necessarily endorsing this specific plan posted by Sammy. I just believe that a plan substantially like this one is the simplest and fairest way to distribute the tax burden amongst the people.
OT: How will the government tax the purchase of a home?
No. Not OT at all. That topic is also discussed in TFA.
There are discussions in the article about taxing the sales of NEW homes and some fear-mongering that this is another reason why this would be a terrible idea.
I think a smarter idea would be to not tax home purchases or rents, but the materials used in the construction or maintenance of a home would be subject to tax.
Again, I am not beholden to this plan or the specifics of it. I just think this idea has true merit, and deserves actual consideration to see if it could be made workable. Of course, there would be all those IRS agents and tax prep guys and accountants that would find themselves out of work, so that should be factored into the total impact of any plan. We should also consider the reduced costs of not jailing tax protesters for their frivolous arguments.
Ok, but here's the problem. Everyone at or above the poverty line WILL PAY MORE TAXES than they do now. That part of the program is not in debate, and any review of this plan has noted this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123001909.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/
You still haven't answered my point about how if you make 200k/year and only spend 100k, you'll be taxed at half the rate (per dollar of income) that you are now. If you make $50k and spend $50k, you're taxed at the full rate at which you're taxed now (or even higher since you'll be paying at the very least 23% tax on everything you buy). This *only* helps people who are able to save every month and build wealth since you're not going to be paying taxes on that money that you're saving. For someone who can't afford to do that, they get screwed by this plan.
This plan doesn't hurt top wage earners (who will cut back on their level of consumption or just leave the country), it hurts the middle class and retirees who will watch their retirement savings buy 30% fewer goods and services than it would have before the switch.
Maybe with THIS plan, that would be the case. Again, I am advocating a plan LIKE this one, but not this specific plan.
I support a plan in which general consumer goods, like food, cars, computers, (fuel?), etc. would be subject to a consumption tax. Things like rents, mortgage, etc. would not be taxed. If you make and spend 50k on consumer goods, I would think you have a problem. Don't you need to live somewhere?
I don't know what the "right" tax rate is exactly. We would need to figure that out. It also would not necessarily need to be flat. Maybe boats could be taxed at a higher rate than bread.
and that would suck, but then again, maybe not...
Assuming those retirees made their retirement savings in a tax deferred manner, well they did not pay taxes on their income... yet. They pay taxes as they take their funds out of the account. That is when they earn their income. So instead of taking his share up front, Uncle Sam gets his cut when they spend their money. Now if they buy a boat with it, they get hit hard, but if they buy bread, not so much...
"Fair" tax is funny because they actually tried to sell the idea with such an ironic name.
To be more objective it should be re-branded the "only fair for people wealthy enough to not spend the majority of their income tax".
To be more objective it should be re-branded the "only fair for people wealthy enough to not spend the majority of their income tax".
Last edited:
by obama's own admission, the bailout is less than perfect. would you have republicans follow the leadership of mediocrity? unless you're sarah palin, you've seen all the broadsheets decrying pork programs. it's borderline criminal.
it can be done right, but unfortunately, there's a particular party with a penchant for frivolously spending tax payers' money.
it can be done right, but unfortunately, there's a particular party with a penchant for frivolously spending tax payers' money.
Let's use tax payer money so our economy doesn't turn into a giant pile of shit!
Really, the earmarks aren't that bad, the Republicans could only find fault with like 2% of the bill, and they found fault with preventing the abuse of women, parks, and condoms.
Really, the earmarks aren't that bad, the Republicans could only find fault with like 2% of the bill, and they found fault with preventing the abuse of women, parks, and condoms.
And the specter of the tag on this thread still looms...
because doing direct payouts don't stimulate the economy as much
No kidding... I'm all for a SMALL, targeted stimulus package. Unfortunately NEITHER side is offering that. Yes, payroll tax holiday works the best. Except the Republicans aren't pushing that, they're pushing a corporate tax cut which I think does absolutely nothing.
And the Democrats aren't pushing the UI or food stamps hard, either... They're pushing nondescript payments to unsupervised state agencies. And they loaded it up with enough pork (small dollar amounts but a LOT of them) that they left themselves wallowing trying to explain why they're paying for underwater lobster cameras... (no, there's actually no lobster cameras in the bill)
Jeebus H. F'ing Christ, were they TRYING to offer up targets to the Republicans?? It doesn't matter that pork is 2% of the total cost, STOP PUTTING IT IN!!
Are you ****ing kidding me? You're not going to tax the purchase of Johnny Suburbia's McMansion? What about his vacation home? How is that NOT consumption?
Have you really thought about this, or are you just trolling?
srsly: for 90% of americans, not themselves.
That sort of thing is what realists looking at the FairTax point out as one of the reasons that the tax base will eroded and rates will need to be much higher than proponents claim.
You know, didn't we kick DamnTrue around like a soccer ball on this issue a couple of years ago?
we need this pkg, so we can have more gov't studies like this: Keep the Happy Meal toys secure, or else
so you're listing one government study as something that might be similar to what could possibly be in the stimulus package? fight the power!!
Theoretically, the tax would have been paid on the parts involved in construction. Why tax it again?
Oh, and it isn't consumption now, it is a DEDUCTION.
Yes, I have really thought about this. I don't see how a plan like this couldn't be made to work. Instead of just saying no, how about suggesting a proper mix to provide the same level of revenue, without additional burden, and without the complexity of the current system? I believe it can be found.
Or are you all a bunch of dirty tax accountants and loophole exploiters?
I don't know what you're missing, but the economy isn't just a little fvcked, it is completely fvcked, hence we need a big package. There were food stamp provisions in the bill, but they were just cut because the Republicans are whiny babies
Last edited:
2 demerits for fear-mongering
and just as soon as food stamps can only be used for essential nutrition, i'm all for it. and relax the "standards" for throw-away food from restaurants. 2% increase in stomach flu is a fine cost for 20% increase in recipients. having the schitz for 3 days can be a motivator anyway. but overall, the program isn't abused as in yrs past. what exactly were the republican complaints? i haven't been tracking this particular objection. and i assume you mean only republicans, and a significant plurality, not some old bat from maine who's never seen a minority.
btw: Dems claim they have votes to OK stimulus
and what - almost 50/50 spending/tax for the $800B. how long until it gets fully distributed? i've seen 2011 bandied about.
also of note, these are getting cut from the stimulus pkg: Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, School improvement, Child Nutrition, Firefighters, Transportation Security Administration [yay!!], Coast Guard, Prisons, COPS Hiring, Violence Against Women, NASA [yay on this, too], NSF, Western Area Power Administration, CDC, Food Stamps (source: whoRunsGov.com). out of these, half should come from local sources anyway from mill levies or other tax increases. yes: tax increases. i'm all for local increase in taxes, and rather cool toward federal level.
If the January job loss numbers aren't making you scared, something's wrong with you. In the last 2 recessions, job loss started slowing down at this point, but it isn't showing any signs of slowing.