Santorum Drops Out

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Malorn

National sales tax for the few things that the federal government needs to do.

State sales tax for the things the state needs to do.

It isn't that hard of a concept, even for you.

Oh I thought he meant to unify the sales taxes under one national tax. But that would make too much sense.

Though really, adding yet another tax onto sales is just another way of stomping on the poor.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Shanesan]

Federal government can tax imports and exports for their daily lives. We don't need a Federal Sales Tax for consumers.

If we can strip the Federal Government back to its roots, whom have control of a military and general lawmaking, we wouldn't need a large federal government. You can tell that's the case because they put a clause in that the Congress MUST meet a minimum number of times a year.

Most things should be taken care of by state governments anyway. The Federal Government was never made for grand-reaching "decision" making like they do today.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Vash02

Oh I thought he meant to unify the sales taxes under one national tax. But that would make too much sense.

Though really, adding yet another tax onto sales is just another way of stomping on the poor.

The national sales tax could literally be 0.1% and generate more than enough revenue for the federal government to do its Constitutionally required duties.

Also, politicians should not be paid more than minimum wage equivalent to a 40 hour work week.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You realize that would mean switching from a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system. Poor people aren't taxed currently so the change would basically just tax them more while removing current taxes on the wealthy (since their investments wouldn't be taxed. Only their purchases).

The taxes on everyone would be less. The same stuff that states don't sales tax would still not be taxed with a national sales tax. Poor people are1 taxed, they just have minimal to no tax liability, which means they get 95%+ returns... but they only get those returns annually. Under my system, that money would never leave their hands... till they bought something they don't really need.

Wealth redistribution is not what the government does, at least not in the sense that people think of when wealth is redistributed. So take less money from everyone.

This allows the wealthy to accrue wealth more easily.

It always has been, always is, and always will be easier to make money with money. Most people could be relatively wealthy, if they had some discipline, knowledge, and less money stolen from them by the government.

Basically your stance on this depends on if you think wealthy people are being held back by a progressive tax and could do more for the economy. A lot of conservatives believe that.

Costs trickle down. Taxes are costs. Who pays the taxes in a business situation? Customers and Employees. Customers are the obvious ones, but employees tend to be overlooked. There are two ways to bring up profits fast in the typical business situation, presuming consistent sales: Cut overhead (employees are the first cuts usually) and raise prices (customers pay more). Employee wages are determined based on the big picture of the business. The more it costs to do business, the less an employee can expect to be paid (whether per hour or total hours).

So really, lowering the tax burden on everyone is a massive stimulus to businesses and consumers. The dollar's inflation would plateau and possibly reverse course. You can't stop a wealthy class from existing without going full on down the socialist/communist path.

It's a very complex subject so I'd recommend for you to read up on it.

I'm always open to more learning on the subject, but Social Economics, Social Engineering, Sociology, and Business Administration were all areas I had intended to focus on for a Masters and eventually a PhD.

Anyway, progressive tax systems are designed to fix a flaw that is social and not economic.

Under my system, the rich would still have a significantly larger tax burden (by percentage) than the less than wealthy or the 'poor'. It just wouldn't be an income tax.

My system would tax wealthy individuals that don't have an income.

[Natir]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The national sales tax could literally be 0.1% and generate more than enough revenue for the federal government to do its Constitutionally required duties.

Also, politicians should not be paid more than minimum wage equivalent to a 40 hour work week.

Our government could just do some major tax reform. But sadly, that is not good in an election year. I mean, look at our dumb republicans who signed that stupid Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes on anyone (businesses and people) back when the committee for deficit reduction was formed. You want to change the tax code, something is in the thousands of pages, that pledge makes it very difficult. Now, looking at our federal budget, it is obvious something needs to give. We cant just raise taxes and we can't just cut all our programs. When you have people like that douche who is just a lobbyist able to wield that much power, I tend to loose hope in our government.

Commenting on your thing about congress, I like what Rick Perry wanted to do with them. Granted I think he was a general idiot, but I liked his idea of what he wanted congress to be. Congress was never supposed to be a full time job with endless lucrative benefits and a damn nice pay. You were meant to be an expert in whatever field you were in and serve your government and provide advice when needed and then go back to your job and let someone else get in. Now we have a ton of really old guys who are stubborn and wont die or leave office to a new face (regardless of political affiliation).

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The pledge to not raise taxes is fine; the pledge to not remove loopholes was pretty retarded. That's creating a problem for Republicans now. They could lower taxes but close loopholes but then their opponents could claim they broke their pledge. The net gain could still be lower taxes or revenue-neutral but a simpler or more fair tax code. But because of that dumb pledge it'll be difficult to get reform.

That is one thing that just infuriates the hell out of me when it comes to politics.

This last few years has just been an unbelievably fucked-up-stupid-nightmare. (I'm talking more about the banks and congress.)

[Natir]

Originally Posted by Vecha

That is one thing that just infuriates the hell out of me when it comes to politics.

This last few years has just been an unbelievably fucked-up-stupid-nightmare. (I'm talking more about the banks and congress.)

Money corrupts. Money controls politics. Corporations and banks control the money. The individual means nothing. The individual is just there to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the far right, whoever is more religious.