National Retail Sales Tax

• stlouiedipalma

  I could get my arms around it as well. I guess what I would like to see is a more simple tax plan which eliminates gigantic loopholes and deductions so that all pay their fair share. So I'll know that the megacorporation is paying just like I am.
• BoatShoes

  dwccrew;669613 wrote:Boo hoo. This is the United States; where anyone can become wealthy with hard work and dedication I.E. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Dave Thomas, Ray Kroc, Sam Walton etc. If someone doesn't like paying 20% of their $20k, they need to work harder at making more money.

  
  I mean this isn't largely the case. All of those examples you provide are the exception and not the rule. In fact, many economists and sociologists are beginning to claim that upward mobility is less likely in America as compared to many other industrialized nations. It is widely believed and argued that America is grounded in the idea of meritocracy. The reality doesn't seem to suggest that. Tom Hertz of American University has found that children from low income families have only a 1% chance of entering the top 5% of income earners. Children of Middle income earners only had a 1.8% chance of entering the top 5%. The differences in upward mobility between blacks and whites was largely the same even when the black children had two parent families who earned middle incomes, etc.
  
  Also, upward mobility has been shown to be largely correlated with level of education. Due to this, education has become more and more expensive as people naturally try to attain more education so that they may attain a higher socio-economic status and this creates an over supply. The legal market is a good example of this currently.
  
  From his paper;
  
  "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."
  
  Hell, it's even been documented that better looking people and taller people tend to earn more money than more average joes.
  
  In response you might say, "well, these young people just need to try to be entrepreneurs instead of get a good job" as say, Robert Kiyosaki, might recommend.
  
  It is incredibly hard for most people to get access to capital credit without collateral. A lot of people who start a business, such as my grandfather for example, used his house for collateral which he was able to get because of the G.I. Bill. These days, how is a an 18 year old graduating from high school going to get capital credit to start a business? He might get a loan from his middle class parents, but they haven't been saving very much since the 70's and have more debt and haven't seen their wages rise since 1990. So, he goes to college and takes out student loans which, as Manhattan Buckeye has said, become an anchor. It's harder to buy a house with that much debt already and even harder to get capital credit to start a risky business that has a 1 in 3 chance of failing.
  
  There is virtue in and of itself in working hard and it does have means value in that it will likely lead to a better income and a more rewarding life....but this idea that it's just as simple as "work, works" in America just really isn't as true any more as it used to be.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;669845 wrote:I mean this isn't largely the case. All of those examples you provide are the exception and not the rule.

  
  Measuring opportunity by outcome is a flawed argument, a complete non-starter.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "And, on top of that, larger income earners and wealthier individuals have more assets that demand protection from the state."
  
  I've heard that argument before, and IMO that's just a silly class warfare argument. Many large income earners have very little assets, e.g. those that live in metropolitan areas that have high taxes and high liabilities (read, student loans). My first couple years of working I was probably in the top 5% of wage earners, but if some clown told me that I needed more protection from the state due to all of the assets I had, I'd be tempted to punch them in the jaw. Even today, on my street the folks on our block that live in $500,000 houses get the same damn police/fire protection and street cleaning and waste services as the folks 10 blocks east that live in $300,000 houses, and the folks 15 blocks west that live in $800,000 houses. We use the same interstate to get to work, we use the same airport for travel, our toilets flush into the same sewer system (I doubt wealthier people crap more) and utilize the same power grid - our personal items are none of the state's business, - we have home owners' insurance to protect that. I'm not demanding protection by the state for anything. I don't see a Red Dawn situation where paratroopers are crossing the ocean to invade the U.S. any time soon.
• O-Trap

  

  stlouiedipalma;669841 wrote:I could get my arms around it as well. I guess what I would like to see is a more simple tax plan which eliminates gigantic loopholes and deductions so that all pay their fair share. So I'll know that the megacorporation is paying just like I am.

  
  Agreed. I tend to detest both extremist views of the wealthier people/entities. On one hand, you have some cheating the system, finding loopholes in order to collect welfare, avoid paying any taxes, and such. On the other hand are the people who basically think that the wealthy have an obligation to bear an exponentially larger burden (percentage-wise) just "because they can."
  
  Neither is how things should work.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;669858 wrote:"And, on top of that, larger income earners and wealthier individuals have more assets that demand protection from the state."
  
  I've heard that argument before, and IMO that's just a silly class warfare argument. Many large income earners have very little assets, e.g. those that live in metropolitan areas that have high taxes and high liabilities (read, student loans). My first couple years of working I was probably in the top 5% of wage earners, but if some clown told me that I needed more protection from the state due to all of the assets I had, I'd be tempted to punch them in the jaw. Even today, on my street the folks on our block that live in $500,000 houses get the same damn police/fire protection and street cleaning and waste services as the folks 10 blocks east that live in $300,000 houses, and the folks 15 blocks west that live in $800,000 houses. We use the same interstate to get to work, we use the same airport for travel, our toilets flush into the same sewer system (I doubt wealthier people crap more) and utilize the same power grid - our personal items are none of the state's business, - we have home owners' insurance to protect that. I'm not demanding protection by the state for anything. I don't see a Red Dawn situation where paratroopers are crossing the ocean to invade the U.S. any time soon.

  All of what you state is irrelevant it seems. It is a fact that the top 10% of income earners owns >80% of the private wealth in this country. If China were to invade tomorrow, who's private assets are getting protected by the military? And you say that you don't see Red Dawn happening anytime soon, and yet, our defense budget is $1,000,000 a year in the name our security. Who's private assets are being protected by this if not the people with all of the private assets?
  
  Perhaps you might say "well I don't think we should spend that much on defense" and that may be a good argument, but similarly to the point you make in your anti-SS arguments, if we're going to have this outrageous expenditure supposedly defending out nation, shouldn't the persons whose private assets would warrant any of this supposed protection be bearing the cost?
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;669873 wrote:All of what you state is irrelevant it seems. It is a fact that the top 10% of income earners owns >80% of the private wealth in this country. If China were to invade tomorrow, who's private assets are getting protected by the military? And you say that you don't see Red Dawn happening anytime soon, and yet, our defense budget is $1,000,000 a year in the name our security. Who's private assets are being protected by this if not the people with all of the private assets?
  
  Perhaps you might say "well I don't think we should spend that much on defense" and that may be a good argument, but similarly to the point you make in your anti-SS arguments, if we're going to have this outrageous expenditure supposedly defending out nation, shouldn't the persons whose private assets would warrant any of this supposed protection be bearing the cost?

  Even in a flat tax scenario, it already IS bearing the brunt.
  
  If the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth (I'm taking your word for that), then that top 10% will be paying 80% of the nation's taxes. Proportional distribution assumed, they're indeed covering the brunt (I would say 80% would be considered the brunt, given that it's covered by 10% of the populace) of that defense cost, and every other cost.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;669884 wrote:Even in a flat tax scenario, it already IS bearing the brunt.
  
  If the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth (I'm taking your word for that), then that top 10% will be paying 80% of the nation's taxes. Proportional distribution assumed, they're indeed covering the brunt (I would say 80% would be considered the brunt, given that it's covered by 10% of the populace) of that defense cost, and every other cost.

  They may own 80% of the wealth but I really doubt they are spending 80% of the money. Which is the problem with a consumption tax.
  
  And in the flat tax scenario they still aren't bearing the brunt since several of the proposals I've seen have excluded things like capital gains from being taxed. Which really wouldn't let you or me off the hook for anything but would allow those top earners to not pay their share.
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;669828 wrote:A flat tax does not have to be flat from dollar zero - yet progressive types fail to listen to this point. Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE, whether they make $20,000, or $2,000,000) could receive an "X" living deduction (for example, $35,000), and the flat rate applies to all amounts above that. That way everyone gets their first $35,000, or whatever, tax free to live - so we don't worry about poor people not being able to afford necessities, if is "fair" in that everyone gets the deduction, and it would obviously simplify the structure.

  Is that what the current flat tax proposals...propose?
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;669632 wrote:So that we could take our new, more efficient tax system (one can dream) and spend the taxes on things that actually better our country and make conducting business here better. Like roads and telecommunications and high speed rail (no, not everywhere, stop freaking out).
  
  I'd hardly call what we spend on defense "essential". We spend like the stereotypical women in a shoe store on defense.

  I wasn't calling what we now spend on defense essential, I am stating that I believe defense is one of the few things the federal government should spend on. Education, infrastructure, etc. should be handled by the individual states IMO. Sorry for the confusion.
  

  BoatShoes;669845 wrote:I mean this isn't largely the case. All of those examples you provide are the exception and not the rule.

  
  Of course I used extreme cases, but the opportunity still exists for people to become wealthy or at least live a comfortable life. There are many middle-eastern people and asian people in my area that came to this country without a penny and they have built themselves comfortable lives. I know several personally. Just because most people don't seize the opportunity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I stand by my statement. Sure, you may never be a billionaire, but you can live a very comfortable life if you work towards it and educate yourself on how to capitalize on the many opportunities out there.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;669911 wrote:They may own 80% of the wealth but I really doubt they are spending 80% of the money. Which is the problem with a consumption tax.

  Actually, I'd be willing to bet they spend more than 80% of the yearly total spent on consumer goods and services. I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on this.
  

  I Wear Pants;669911 wrote:And in the flat tax scenario they still aren't bearing the brunt since several of the proposals I've seen have excluded things like capital gains from being taxed. Which really wouldn't let you or me off the hook for anything but would allow those top earners to not pay their share.

  
  Then that would be, in one view, a problem with the way it has been proposed then, but that isn't a vital component to the idea of flat tax in general, so that doesn't negate the validite of flat tax, but rather it negates one of the ancillary elements of the proposal surrounding flat tax.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "All of what you state is irrelevant it seems. It is a fact that the top 10% of income earners owns >80% of the private wealth in this country. "
  
  Of course it is irrelevant when you like most "progressives" take all generalizations and it apply it to the entire group. I don't give a rat's ass that 10% of income earners own 80% of the private wealth in this country if I'm one one of the top 10% and I own diddly squat. If you want to tax "personal wealth" have at it, attempts to do in the past (e.g., personal property taxes) are just as complex and arguable.
• I Wear Pants

  dwccrew;669934 wrote:I wasn't calling what we now spend on defense essential, I am stating that I believe defense is one of the few things the federal government should spend on. Education, infrastructure, etc. should be handled by the individual states IMO. Sorry for the confusion.
  
  
  
  Of course I used extreme cases, but the opportunity still exists for people to become wealthy or at least live a comfortable life. There are many middle-eastern people and asian people in my area that came to this country without a penny and they have built themselves comfortable lives. I know several personally. Just because most people don't seize the opportunity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I stand by my statement. Sure, you may never be a billionaire, but you can live a very comfortable life if you work towards it and educate yourself on how to capitalize on the many opportunities out there.

  Though a real problem is that education is becoming more and more expensive, despite attempts to make it more affordable. This makes it so that people from low income families don't get as much education as people from higher income families (in general) which makes it especially difficult to "climb the ladder" to a more affluent lifestyle.
  

  O-Trap;669935 wrote:Actually, I'd be willing to bet they spend more than 80% of the yearly total spent on consumer goods and services. I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on this.

  As would I.
• fan_from_texas

  BoatShoes;669845 wrote:Also, upward mobility has been shown to be largely correlated with level of education. Due to this, education has become more and more expensive as people naturally try to attain more education so that they may attain a higher socio-economic status and this creates an over supply. The legal market is a good example of this currently.

  
  My understanding is that IQ is one of the most heritable of attributes, and it's also strongly correlated to earning money. Smart people are much more likely to (1) make more money and (2) have smart kids, who will also make more money. In other words, the fact that successful people have kids who are also successful doesn't strike me as much of a revelation. Wouldn't we expect that in a meritocracy?
• I Wear Pants

  fan_from_texas;670050 wrote:My understanding is that IQ is one of the most heritable of attributes, and it's also strongly correlated to earning money. Smart people are much more likely to (1) make more money and (2) have smart kids, who will also make more money. In other words, the fact that successful people have kids who are also successful doesn't strike me as much of a revelation. Wouldn't we expect that in a meritocracy?

  People cry about class warfare and then say things like this.
  
  Saying that poor people are lazy/stupid is just as bad of a generalization as thinking that all rich people are greedy, cheating, loophole finding deviants.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;669988 wrote:As would I.

  In such case, that would mean that the 10% with 80% of the wealth would pay even more than 80% of all the taxes, because that 10% likely accounts for a total higher than 80% of what is annually spent on consumer goods and services.
  
  That's actually a supporting statistic for consumer tax.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;670066 wrote:Saying that poor people are lazy/stupid ...

  
  He didn't say poor people are lazy/stupid. He said lazy/stupid people are usually poor.
  
  Same as him saying all zebras are mammals, and you saying he said all mammals are zebras.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Why is it ok to generalize that the richest people are greedy, but then we cannot generalize that the poorest people are lazy?
  I'm generalizing a couple of posts here, so this isn't directed at any one person, but I do find it absolutely fascinating...
• I Wear Pants

  I literally just said it wasn't okay to do that.
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;670103 wrote:Why is it ok to generalize that the richest people are greedy, but then we cannot generalize that the poorest people are lazy?
  I'm generalizing a couple of posts here, so this isn't directed at any one person, but I do find it absolutely fascinating...

  
  Neither is acceptable. Period.
  
  Anyone who truly believes either one is incredibly ignorant, and their opinion on the matter is a detriment to society.
• fan_from_texas

  O-Trap;670091 wrote:He didn't say poor people are lazy/stupid. He said lazy/stupid people are usually poor.
  
  Same as him saying all zebras are mammals, and you saying he said all mammals are zebras.

  Exactly. Or at least that's true--my argument was more on the "smart people get rich" side as opposed to "dumb people get poor," but it's roughly the same argument. I should also clarify that when I say "rich," I mean "high income" as opposed to "high net worth," which is a different issue and one that generally is best addressed by estate taxes, not income taxes.
  
  My general point is that since smart people usually make more money than dumb people, and smart people usually have smarter kids than dumb people, it shouldn't be a surprise that wealthy people tend to have kids who are also wealthy.
• BoatShoes

  fan_from_texas;670050 wrote:My understanding is that IQ is one of the most heritable of attributes, and it's also strongly correlated to earning money. Smart people are much more likely to (1) make more money and (2) have smart kids, who will also make more money. In other words, the fact that successful people have kids who are also successful doesn't strike me as much of a revelation. Wouldn't we expect that in a meritocracy?

  
  Perhaps in the purest sense of the word you're right. And yes, in fact IQ is probably the best predictor of future earnings and success, etc. But, being born with a high IQ and the subsequent attainment that correlates with winning the fruits of genetic lottery, is that what people mean when they're talking about meritocracy?? What did Dwwcrew say...he said "Work harder and earn more money."
  
  When people are talking about merit and earning success in America....they're talking about guys like you and Manhattan Buckeye, whom, if I remember correctly both grew up in solidly blue collar backgrounds and grew up to attend good undergraduate colleges and prestigious law schools and landing the big time jobs at big time firms. That's not to say you or your parents did not have IQ's....I do not mean that...I'm sure you and your families are all plenty smart and mean no insult. I have no doubt that reasonable posters such as yourselves are the fruits from a fertile tree. But, what I mean is that you earned your success through perseverance, hard work, wits and fortitude. Your situation in life was not going to stop you. That's what I hear people saying when they talk about merit in America. The Mensa society doesn't boast about the specific arrangement of their A's, T's, C's and G's within their DNA. Lebron James doesn't take pride in his 6'8 herculean frame like a businessman does in the first dollar he earned.
  
  But again, should we blame the smart child because his ugly physicist parents decided to procreate? Certainly not. Harrison Bergeron was a man like anyone else. But, at the same time, the idea that we can know within reasonable certainty the amount of success a person will have because he has either rich or smart parents is not what people are talking about when people refer to America as the land of opportunity.
  
  What you're describing, in reality, is not a meritocracy as we've come to understand it but what Plato called a noocracy, an "aristocracy of the wise," the elitist future he predicted for the world. In fact, it seems to me in response to Dwcrews hypothesis, "Work harder and earn more money," the evidence you propose that IQ is correlated with higher incomes might suggest that we say he is largely wrong. Instead we might say "well, if you're stupid, you'll probably just have to live with it....no use bitching. It is futile for you to try to become a wealthy investment banker as there is no way you could understand that capital asset pricing model and all the nuances that involved in modern pillage. No worries though, the meek shall inherit the earth. Take heart."
• gut

  I'm in favor of a national sales tax. I think it's inevitable. Or maybe a VAT, instead, which seems to be the popular choice globally.
  
  But forget about subsidies or refunds or anything like that. Just more govt bureacracy and waster. Exclude necessities like food and other essentials like energy/utilities and there should be no need for rebates or anything like that (someone buying an IPhone should pay the sales tax rather they make 20k or 2M). I wouldn't oppose a sales tax on services, so long as they don't get carried away on things like financial services (buying and selling a stock, home loan, etc..)
  
  That said, the govt needs to spend less and until Washington becomes more fiscally responsible I have to oppose any sort of tax increase. Get a balanced budget, then come back to me about raising taxes to pay down the debt gradually.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;670091 wrote:He didn't say poor people are lazy/stupid. He said lazy/stupid people are usually poor.
  
  Same as him saying all zebras are mammals, and you saying he said all mammals are zebras.

  
  I need to start making it more clear when I'm making a general statement that the quoted post made me think of and not a direct response to the quote.
  
  He did not say that poor people are lazy/stupid that is correct. Though I've seen/read/heard many people espouse that idea.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;670176 wrote:I'm in favor of a national sales tax. I think it's inevitable. Or maybe a VAT, instead, which seems to be the popular choice globally.
  
  But forget about subsidies or refunds or anything like that. Just more govt bureacracy and waster. Exclude necessities like food and other essentials like energy/utilities and there should be no need for rebates or anything like that (someone buying an IPhone should pay the sales tax rather they make 20k or 2M). I wouldn't oppose a sales tax on services, so long as they don't get carried away on things like financial services (buying and selling a stock, home loan, etc..)
  
  That said, the govt needs to spend less and until Washington becomes more fiscally responsible I have to oppose any sort of tax increase. Get a balanced budget, then come back to me about raising taxes to pay down the debt gradually.

  I would be okay with that I guess. If done right it could certainly be more simple than the mess we now have. And leaving out food and energy/utilities takes away at least some of the "it harms the poor" argument.