Base taxes on net worth only.

In less than a month.

 

I agree the only fair tax is a flat tax - but on consumption, not income.

 

Check out the numbers. Those who are getting enough money back to find this objectionable are getting benefited in ways that no rational patriotic person would condone. The current system is truly a long con that has taken advantage of people who really do not know what a sustainable constitutional republic looks like in terms of the specific perimeters needed to keep it sustainable. This is how they will learn. http://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancin...tm_content=talk&utm_term=global-social issues

 

Thank you. That is why it is the true foundation of a free market system and a democratic republic. Only fascism fears this. Coupled with all establishment and changes to basic policy require a majority consensus by public referendum do we realize what was started in 1776.

 

I meant the drug dealers etc... sure when they spent it they might be taxed depending on what they are spending it on. But if you buy drugs the money isn't taxed for that purpose. I can see a whole new black market being established to cheat Uncle Sugar.

 

I am curious as to why you think the rich would not benefit from a flat tax. Since Conservatives continually claim the rich pay a higher rate of tax on their income seems a flat tax would be to their benefit?

 

Flat tax on consumption would reduce consumption and since consumer spending is about 64% of GDP a flat tax would be a sure route to low GDP and the resulting recession would create the negative feedback loop that would probably result in a full blown depression.

 

They already have the best tax code their money can buy, why mess with perfection? I guarantee you the richest of the rich pay less than any flat tax would impose on them now. We are talking the uber rich here, not the guy from main street USA who owns most of the successful businesses, and is the mayor or something. We are talking about country club and Penthouse dwellers, who have more elected officials on speed dial than, the NRA and the Catholic league combined. These people already pay extremely small percentage on their overall income and don't even claim it completely. They are the one's who matter, and they are the one's who have fought against a flat tax ever since the suggestion surfaced.

Do you realize that the upper .000001 % (the richest of the rich) pay no more than 22% of the income they claim and on average pay around 12-14% of their entire (again claimed) income. That means a lot of them, who have (on paper) a 35-55% tax commitment, pay less than 3% if anything. That's right there are some ridiculously rich socialites, living in mansions, eating caviar, and lighting cigars with $100.00 bills when it suits them, who are paying zero taxes. And most republicans refuse to admit it and many of them are democrats. I doubt there are many of them, who control the government, the corporate media, and both major parties who could even jokingly refer to themselves as conservatives, but if it churns your blood will do so just for laughs.

 

People will stop eating? Stop going to the movies? Stop buying school supplies? Stop going on vacation? I don't think so...

 

Not if it was associated with no income taxes (including the employer provided portion of them). Prices would probably end up not changing a whole lot as a percentage of income. In addition, per the Fair tax, American made goods would become cheaper relative to foreign made goods. Used goods would not be taxed.

 

When you tax something you get less of it … that is the whole idea of Pigovian taxes. The only exception to this rule is a tax on land value. What is it about consumption that make you so disgusted that you feel it should be punished?

 

Yeah, only new goods would be taxed … and that would so discourage buying new that the demand for old would skyrocket. A tax on new cars would drive up the price of old cars, as people try to avoid the tax. Consumption taxes are stupid and unfair.

 

Newsflash: Commerce is the fuel of the economic engine. Don't take people/'s money when they earn it, take it when they spend it. And they WILL spend it. But no more tax breaks for the poor... no more tax breaks for the rich, You pay your taxes at the cash register. And at the county assayer when you purchase that land. Everything is taxed at the same rate. Chips fall where they may. Meh,

 

Bingo! Huckabee has proposed a consumption tax, but with all the gay lovers and faith haters, he'll have no chance to ever implement some very sound economic proposals.

 

That's certainly not his original idea, nor is he the only one capable of making such a proposal.

 

Didn't say he was. Was just making a point that some people are so caught up in this gay marriage case, or hate when religion and faith are openly discussed, that they're completely dismissing him as some sort of Bible thumping wacko, and they totally ignore his good solid approach toward much more important issues.

Not saying he's my favorite candidate. Just stating the obvious about the LIV's out there.

 

Speaking only for myself, I wish politicians would leave their religion at home. It has no place in our government and no bearing on a person's ability to lead. I hate the fact that if I want low taxes and strong national defense that I have to take all the baggage that comes along with it. If the GOP could fine a candidate that has the balls to tell the religious right to go (*)(*)(*)(*) themselves, they'd win every election. There are millions out here like me... MILLIONS.

 

I can respect that position. That's why I typically avoid the faith arguments here, and don't consider those issues high on my list of what and who I vote for.

But I also can respect guys like Huckabee, who isn't afraid to put all his cards on the table, rather than being dishonest just to garner votes.

Just look at Hillary. She flip flops almost daily, depending on what position might collect her more votes.

 

Endless data exists showing that consumption is flexible. And yes people do make spending decisions based on cost. As a matter of interest consumer spending has just gone through a rather definitive cycle after the most recent recession where savings rate increased significantly, consumer debt went down and consumption was reduced. Only recently has consumer confidence and spending returned to normal levels.

As another example you can look up the relationship between home purchasing and interest rates.

 

Except for the fact that the actual price of goods purchased will rise appreciably you are correct. you are making the assumption that discretionary purchases are made on the basis of the percentage of income spent as opposed to actual cost. Such a change in behavior might occur although it might be dangerous to bet the entire health of the economy on such an assumption.

And I guess your statement that US produced goods would be cheaper than foreign made goods is based on the elimination of corporate taxes while the flat tax would be added to the goods produced overseas. But then this assumes the actual,price of foreign made goods will rise more than wages which would seem to contradict the purchasing logic discussed above.

 

Production and consumption are like two sides of a coin. Taxes on consumption discourage production just as much as an income tax does, because it discourages consumption. In other words, you can't tax one without burdening the other. Sales taxes are easy for the rich to avoid because they can just do their spending in other countries which don't have sales taxes. Sales taxes would make stealing stuff more profitable. There are many reasons why taxing consumption is a bad idea.

The most general of interests are those of the consumer … everyone is a consumer. If government is to serve the general interests of the citizens (as opposed to special interests) then land value taxation is the obvious best choice. If bread were to sell for $1 per loaf in a tax free environment then it would still sell for $1 per loaf after the land value tax is levied. On the other hand, if we use a sales tax to fund government the price of a loaf of bread jumps to ~$1.23.

The price of a loaf of bread with government funded by land value taxation = $1.00.
The price of a loaf of bread with government funded by national sales tax = $1.23.

Consumers are 23% better off if government is funded by land value taxation.

Do you have some special interest which you want government to serve and which you are willing to gouge consumers with a 23% price increase in order to get?

 

Very few people hold just cash. I find it hard to believe that a) it's a problem and b) that if it is a problem, it's one of such significance that it's worth addressing. Perhaps you have evidence otherwise. If it's not stuff in a mattress or safe, it's not just sitting.

That is illogical. If $1 becomes $1.01 a year later, the amount has grown regardless of whether the purchasing power of the dollar has been reduced by more than the $.01 allows for. The value may be lower, but the amount has grown.

I'm not into moral equivalencies. Even if I were, you missed the point. The losers in your scenario are those who can ill afford to be. Chances are, the Bush tax proposal does the same. Which, if you accept moral equivalence, puts you on par with Bush.

 

Fair enough. The left wants government out of the bedroom. The right wants government out of the boardroom. I happen to agree with both positions. The problem is the converse is also true: The left wants to regulate and monitor almost every facet of your financial life, while the right wants to make sure it's "man on top, woman on bottom" because they believe we are all going to hell if it's "man on top, man on bottom." I say it's nobody's damn business -- in either case.

So I can respect a guy like Obama for basically saying, "yes, I am a socialist and I am going to fundamentally transform America." And I can respect a guy like Huckabee for saying, "yes, I am a theocratic authoritarian and I am going to rule by the word of God." I happen to disagree with both men vehemently, but I do respect the honesty.

The other side of that coin is, you're right, the Hillaries of the world. I'll throw Trump in there -- Hillary with a penis. Well, some say she already has one, but...

- - - Updated - - -

COGS will be far lower without corporate income tax. Individuals will have more money to spend without personal income tax. I predict revenue-neutral to slight gain (if you believe Laffer).

- - - Updated - - -

You're ignoring the 35% - 50% increase in disposable income as a result of the abolition of income tax. People will spend just as much as they do now if not more. It's what we do.

 

Don't know whether she has that piece of anatomy but she definitely has a super long Pinocchio nose.

 

I'm not ignoring the increase in disposable income, because switching to land value taxation would also eliminate the income tax. So, both the consumption tax and land value tax leave producers with more money, they are equivalent up to this point; but then the consumption tax puts a 23% burden on consumers, which land value taxation doesn't do. Land value taxation leaves consumers 23% wealthier than the “fair” tax, period. After a land value tax is levied it is burdenless, or in other words, the economy operates as if there are no taxes at all. That is why John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Milton Friedman, and a whole slew of the the best economists in the world advocated for taxes to be levied on land values.

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." — Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics (1976)