*DAMN R6 Forum

    I'm of the opinion that America's graduated tax system is a poor implementation of taxation. Taxation, like government, is a necessary evil. It's not going to go away, but the mechanism can be improved.

    My favorite alternative to a graduated tax is a national sales tax, also known as a user tax. Add 15-20% (or thereabouts) to all prices, and let the people who are spending money pay the tax.

    This has several obvious advantages. The big one is that there would be no more income tax, no deductions, none of that. Paychecks would (apparently) get larger, which has a pleasing psychological effect.

    Another advantage is that money that is deposited in banks or invested would not be taxed, since it is not being spent. That supplies an incentive to save money, which (according to standard economic theory) benefits the economy.

    When money is deposited, that bank then loans it out in order to recieve interest payments (that's how banks earn a profit). The person or business who takes out that loan then spends the money (spending = good for the economy), and the people or businesses who recieve that money then deposit it into banks, where the cycle begins again. This is a slight simplification of the process, but you get the idea.

    A third advantage is that the process of tax collection is greatly simplified, which would greatly reduce the power and size of the IRS. There's no way to avoid paying the tax, since it's built into the price of all commodities and services. No more audits, no more seizure of property (which has always seemed quasi-legal at best), no more huge waste of taxpayer money on a bloated government department.

    With a national sales tax, prices would be quite a bit higher, but you'd be bringing home more money to compensate.

    I think it's an eminently reasonable solution to the problem of America's tangled mess of tax laws and huge waste of money and manpower on the enforcement of those laws.

great idea, infact it's brilliant, except for one little thing

because it's so good, it will never come to pass. damn politicians

also do you think that the rich are really going to see all their loopholes closed?

Actually, I'm a fan of the ideas behind the Federal Sales Tax... but there is one flaw...

When something happens (like the WTC) and consumer confidence gets shakey... money going into the government gets shakey.... ?

Having a budget that could go into the toliet because of two months of America not spending is a scarry proposition.... ?If the government can't pay it's bills... business can't pay many of theirs (the government is a big consumer for businesses)... those business fold... and the whole thing comes crashing down.

Again, I'm for it, it just needs to pass the Devil's Advocate test... once it gets there, I'll lobby for it.  Obviously some people have figured it all out... there are a few states that have sales tax and no income tax... if they can do it, no reason the Federal Government can't figure it out too.

One other great thing that you didn't mention.... we wouldn't need the IRS as it stands today. ?That would save Billions in taxes right there.  Oh, and no more tax forms (with a users tax, there is no use for deductions, eh?

 I think Brain has some competition.  Mr. Lothario has 40 posts in one day.   ;)

;)

    Getting rid of the IRS, or at least reducing it to a shadow of its former self, would save tremendous amounts of money: "The IRS total budget request for FY 2003 is $10.418 billion..." (http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2002/nrfs02-09.html) $10.4 billion is really not all that much in the U.S. Government's budget, but this sort of refinement of process and reducing of cost could be used to great effect all throughout the government.

    For instance, air traffic control, Amtrak, and the US Postal Service should be privatized. I was not able to find any information regarding the USPS budget, but they are boasting that they reduced their operating costs by $900 million. Read: the USPS sucks down a lot of money.

    Force efficiency by forcing these sloppy government agencies to compete. The government's budget will shrink, which means less taxes are needed. Lower taxes lead to a healthier economy, according to the idea of supply-side economics. A healthier economy won't stop economic slouches from damaging the government's income, but it will mitigate the effect somewhat.

    What can I say? I'm a forum whore, and this is a good forum. : )

No complaint...just warning Brain...wh0re away  ;)

*whirr....click.....buzz.....bing*
***forum whore mode re-activated***


ok, so you want to play? let's play 8)


but seriously, i see no problem with your arguments it is just that if you do a relatity check, the beaurocrats are simply NOT going to let somehting like this happen.
unfortunatly the curent beroracy is to entreanched in it's ways to accept radical reform.  maybe if  we started small we could start to get some reform done(note a good time to do this is right after elections, when the reform promises are still in the minds of the voters) but it will take a long time  to get major changes, like the new tax system, through the congress.

    Oh, I will. I will, indeed. Mwa. Ha. Ha.

oh and i know you didnt do 40 posts in a day
i on the other hand had 6 forums where i had the lastest post and 13 straight threads on general gossip where i had the last post (17 total)

beat that  8)

    That effect is probably the main reason we've still got some clearly terrible systems still hanging around in this country. There will be no real improvements in the tax codes because there's a huge amount of vested interest in keeping them as complicated and flawed as possible. There will be no improvement in (or better yet, abolishment of) Social Security because there's too much vested interest in it as it stands. The same goes for welfare.

    I don't have anything against welfare in principle. Helping out the people who really need help is a noble goal. Unfortunately, it's the government who's in charge of it, which always results in rampant inefficiency and waste. Private charities do a far better job using far less money.

    The basic and proper role of government is to make and enforce laws, to build and maintain infrastructure, to ensure national defense, and to collect tax to pay for these things. I say, wipe the slate clean! Amputate the extraneous roles that our government has taken upon itself. Let private concerns handle those roles, for they can do so far better than the government can. The government should govern. No more, no less.

? ? Actually, you're right. I made three posts last night before I registered. So it's more like 43. ;D



? ? I'd love to challenge that record, but I'm not up to matching your volume of verbal diarrhea.

ok, lorentho has my vote for the next election
personally i think that social security is going to die by the time i get to that age, so there is one program down, but what about the others?

you have excelent ideals lorentho, but what you need is programs to implement them

? ? ::looks around:: Who's this Lorentho guy you keep mentioning?

? ? I've thought about taking up the reins of public office. I've got two fatal flaws, though. I despise inefficiency for the sake of inefficiency, and I don't lie. The latter means that I could never be elected, and the former means that if I was somehow elected, I wouldn't be able to stand the job.

sorry about the name loth

now, about getting elected in the current semi reformist climate (are you really going to tell me that people arent gonna want a change afterlast election fiasco) you may want to try, after all you may just do well enough to win, and then you can work on removing all the rampant inefficiency that bugs you so

if you run on tthe ideal of truly cleaning up govenrment, you should do fine

    Hehe, no problem about the name.

    The other thing that's stopped me from seriously considering a political career is this: if I did get elected, accomplishing any kind of serious reforms would be virtually impossible. First, I have to battle my colleagues, who are placid and well funded by special interest groups. My colleagues certainly won't be behind any real reforms, because their constituents aren't. Americans are pretty politically (and economically, and historically) illiterate, which means that they don't know and don't care about the benefits of reform. They only see their free money and loopholes going bye-bye.

    If I actually get a bill on the table, the American political system ensures that it will be watered down and corrupted long before it ever has a chance to become law. That's the way it was designed.

    Of course, all this is moot, because I'm not a millionare and therefore cannot afford to run for any significant political office.

    So I am limited to sparking the imaginations of forum-goers, in the hopes that the memes will spread and eventually have an effect. I'm simply a vector. : )

god dammit man, believe in the deam, BELIEVE IN IT!


now to take a more realistic view
yea, you're right
but you can still introduce the bill through your state senator, and then you gat a warm fuzzy feeling because you did something : \

    Hmm, good point. Which reminds me: California has a mechanism by which any citizen (really, group of citizens) can get a constitutional amendment (the CA constitution) on the next ballot without any legislators being involved. We can also kick any elected official out of office, and I believe we can veto new laws. Of course, it requires the signatures of many many people, so it's time-consuming and expensive to actually do it. But it's possible, which is excellent.

    BTW, I just made member. I've been registered for 23.5 hours. Booyah.  ;D

it's easy when you have a constant supply of messages to feed of of isnt it?

    Yeah, this is true. But I got my start over in the gun control thread. You have no power there! Ha! So there! Now keep posting. I need fodder. ; )

no

fodder off of that ;)

    Yes!

    You asked for it. ; )

i'll leave that alone

FIrst... SPAM warning... don't make me start deleting those things guys (it was fine until the last three).

Second, I have the same problem with public office Loth... well, that and the video tape of me skinny dipping in the pool with those three women that someone has a couple copies of (and I'm actually not kidding... every now and then, the bastard pulls it out in front of company.  One more reason why I don't drink anymore).

Thrid, a federal sales tax can be done... states have done it, so why couldn't the feds?  It would be trickey... you'd have pelnty of lobiests fighting against it, but now is a good time, because companies like Arthur Anderson, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (my old company), D&T... all of the the big accounting houses... have a little less pull right now.  But it would be putting 90% of the CPA's out of business... along with a bunch of tax lawyers... so there will be people with money fighting it.  Michigan was moving towards it a couple years ago... but has stalled.  We went from a 4% to 6% sales tax, and lowered the income tax from 6.5% down to 4.4%.... and the budget hasn't suffered... but they haven't moved it since.  

But, take this example too...  I was in Texas a while back (one of those states with no income tax... at least back then... don't know about now).  Anyway, there was like an 8% state tax on everything.  But it didn't end there... I was in Houston, and I ended up paying another 4% before it was all over (I was in Sugarland, so I was paying both Sugarland and Houston taxes... they are a bit screwey).  But you get my point.  If you have a Federal Sales Tax at around 35%, and then add State and Local Sales Tax onto that...  You could be paying over 50% in taxes.  So, while it feels like you have more money.... it also feels like INFLATION just got a rocket booster (and even percieved inflation hurts spending).  Also, 35% may be conservative for a Federal Sales Tax... they'd have to transition, not go cold turkey... get an idea for how much is really being brought in.  Then the'd have to overhaul some of the other tax laws (there are laws about not paying taxes for the first X amount of years when you move to America that are being exploited around here I know)... They'd also have to increase Tarriffs to go with it (to keep people from crossing over to Canada and Mexico to get their goods).  And catalog / internet purchases could no longer be exempt (imagine that spiffy new iMac now costs $2700, not $1800.... just because of taxes).  You would think that the price of those goods would go down too... because the companies wont be paying taxes... but they will... they will be paying higher prices in the parts (in the form of sales tax on those purchases).  

I'm still for it, but the shift in perception of the cost of goods could ruin it from the start.  Everything would cost more before you really saw the benefits of the bigger pay checks and more savings.

    Yeah, good points. I suspect that a Federal sales tax would work well, but you're right in saying that the transition would be very bumpy.

    The other good alternative is a flat tax. This is, if I recall correctly, the platform that Steve Forbes was running for president on. It's a good idea too, even though it doesn't give me the same thrill of efficiency-inspired joy that a national sales tax does. Reduce the income tax rate to 35% or so across the board. You can do away with tax brackets and many other complications. Pretty simple, far more efficient than a graduated tax, and much more fair.

    I've actually read arguments to the effect that the current, graduated tax system is unconstitutional, in that it does not provide "equal protection under the law," which is guaranteed in the Constitution.

so thke the present system  to court. when it is struck down there will be a forced change in the tax code.
then you will have a much easie tim lobbying your sales tax

    Good idea. The only problem is, I don't have the several millions of dollars that it would require to fight that court battle.

i can chip in 5 bucks... :D


in reality you could probabily find an organization that will foot the bill for you somewhere