Do you supoort extending Bush Tax Cuts

[sgreger1]

The reason the sales tax angle is a better approach is simply businesses already have a large paperwork burden, but lets say if a business had to file 15% of its gross, but no longer have to pay in the income taxes for the individuals, the paperwork is lessened. Sure they still have to pay SS taxes for you, but no longer fed taxes. So no real change in the amount of paperwork. However you as the employee now do... nothing. You get between 15 and 35% more money each payday, and though the cost of everything just went up, you feel better about spending more money because you feel like your making more.

In a flat tax scenario, I would be mad if I made 10k in a year and had to give up 1500. This is a hardship on the poor and requires a system be put in place to buffer them, leading to more legislation and ultimately cheating. But a sales tax on everything but say rent or mortgage and food/baby items you would barely notice. Would it make much difference if your 40 dollar VCR was now 45 dollars? Would it make a difference if your toaster was now 11.50 instead of 10.00? Plus your getting the benefit of an extra 15% or more on each paycheck. So if you were poor and your weekly takehome was 200, now its 230... So that toaster and VCR are easily covered. I believe that for the really poor (those that cant afford a VCR) we could offer up rebates, similar to earned income has been in the past a big payday for those making lots of new babies that cant afford them. We can still support the stupid.

But the rich who likely have found many ways of paying much less than the 50% we somehow think they should pay, now would actually have to pay. If they want that new Rolls Royce, they pay, new boat, they pay, kitchen remodel.. yep they pay.

Look at your last checkstub and tell me you would not feel a lot better if that portion withheld for federal taxes (not the fica) was in your pocket? I know I sure would, even if the cost of the goods I buy went up 10-20%. I would rather choose when and where I get taxed.

Yes, the sales tax thing works because it is then up to the taxpayer how to spend their money and be taxed. It would boost savings and also help pay off debt since people would in theory have more money in their pocket. This is good for the country in the long term.

But, keep in mind, this would have to be 10-15% ON TOP of the current sales tax. In my state sales tax is already 10%, and we're flat ****ing broke (and we still pay high state tax too). This would have to be like a 20% sales tax or something.

I am sure there is a way to work the math out, but the biggest increase in revenue would come from the fact that rich people cannot avoid this tax.

[Darwin]

I think that hardly anyone would argue that rich people don't spend a lot more money and it's true that investment income would not be affected by a national sales tax but every buck in an investment or back account not spent by a rich person is still doing work. The rich don't hide the money they don't spend under mattresses. They invest it in securities, stocks, and other return generating instruments. That process is about as effective an economic stimulant as is possible to imagine--wildly more efficient and targeted than any government handout could ever be. More money can indeed result in more money but even the biggest richest asshole out there doesn't want to make poor investments with negative returns because that means that the economics behind that investment are flawed and should be changed. Businesses that make money keep their investors, customers and their employees happier as a general rule. Businesses that don't make money constitute poor investments and all suffer, employees included.

Investment income that is not spent on consumer items means there is that much more money available to stimulate economic activity. So all the money that anyone makes, spent or not, can do useful work in an economy. Don't see a big downside there. Bill Gate's and Warren Buffet's billions are sluicing through the economy even if they are only spending a small fraction of their investment incomes on goodies for their own personal use. Even Bill can only spend so much on himself and his family leaving billions available to benefit the rest of the economy. As far as a lamentable concentration of power due to this process, or putatively resulting from a national sales tax, the choices that ordinary people have in the vast galaxy of consumer items of every conceivable description are proof that most of the undeserving rich assholes still have to compete with one another for power and prestige. The ranks of rich assholery are not monolithic. For every Dupont there is a Buffet, for every Soros a Gates etc, and they display a range of political inclination as diverse as the noble proletariat or the petit-bourgeosie. That begets competition and that begets a vibrant economy.

[texastorm]

While I am obviously for a national sales tax (you have to spend money to make money! thats why it works even on the rich) what I fear the most is a national sales tax in addition to our current debacle. I have heard some minor talks in favor of this from some Dems and it makes me sick to think about it.

As far as the bs argument about investment income not being taxed... wtf do people think businesses are made of? If people are investing in businesses, other people are getting jobs, and with those fatter paychecks, they are paying a sales tax... It would only need to be 10% IF it could be free from cheating politicians. Which is why in the end, no policy will work except in theory. If Congress enacted a national sales tax they would fill the bill with so much bunk it would be 10k pages long and full of pork and handouts, as well as exemptions written in for those who can afford to lobby in their own interests.

But it is a wonderful theory, and those we have zillions of.

[sgreger1]

I think that hardly anyone would argue that rich people don't spend a lot more money and it's true that investment income would not be affected by a national sales tax but every buck in an investment or back account not spent by a rich person is still doing work. The rich don't hide the money they don't spend under mattresses. They invest it in securities, stocks, and other return generating instruments. That process is about as effective an economic stimulant as is possible to imagine--wildly more efficient and targeted than any government handout could ever be. More money can indeed result in more money but even the biggest richest asshole out there doesn't want to make poor investments with negative returns because that means that the economics behind that investment are flawed and should be changed. Businesses that make money keep their investors, customers [I]and[I] their employees happier as a general rule. Businesses that don't make money constitute poor investments and all suffer, employees included.

Investment income that is not spent on consumer items means there is that much more money available to stimulate economic activity. So all the money that anyone makes, spent or not, can do useful work in an economy. Don't see a big downside there. Bill Gate's and Warren Buffet's billions are sluicing through the economy even if they are not spending a fraction of their investment incomes on goodies for their own personal use. Even Bill can only spend so much on himself and his family leaving billions available to benefit the rest of the economy. As far as a lamentable concentration of power due to this process, or putatively resulting from a national sales tax, the choices that ordinary people have in the vast galaxy of consumer items of every conceivable description are proof that most of the undeserving rich assholes still have to compete with one another for power and prestige. The ranks of rich assholery are not monolithic. For every Dupont there is a Buffet, for every Soros a Gates etc, and they display a range of political inclination as does the noble proletariat or the petit-bourgeosie. That begets competition and that begets a vibrant economy.

This is essentially how I feel about it. I mean it pisses me off the like 5% of people own 23% of the wealth or whatever, but stricly keeping this in the realm and focus of helping the economy, it's usually a better idea to let the private market fix it. Government can inentivize certain decision, but any mandate usually turns out poorly. Raising taxes on people just for having a lot of money (as though that's a crime), will not help the economy, that I can guarantee.

But the reality here is that the dems are proposing keeping middle class tax cuts while raising those for the rich. The republicans want tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but have no power in congress to bring that about right now. So the best case scenario is going with the dems plan, untill they go back to their usual ways of raising taxes on everyone.


As Darwin so elegantly wrote above, people think rich people are some kind of burden on the economy or bad for the country. This is not true. All that money, like Darwin stated, is sitting there helping the economy every second. Most people are just jealous because it is not theirs. It doesn't matter if rich CEO's took a giant pay cut and raised the salary of every employee to $200,000. The poor would spend it all away and be poor again, and the rich would be the ones recieveing, keeping, and investing that money. The money distribution works out the way it is because some people are financially illiterate, no because there is a group of rich guys who hate poor people and just want to profit into infinity.

Given that, i don't see why the left is always hating on rich people as though they are inherently evil for ammasing wealth through good investments, education, and good work ethic. Sounds like a case of being jelous more than anything. The grass is always greener on your neighbors lawn, but that doens't mean you should atuomatically hate your neighbor because his lawn is greener. He probably spent more time tending to it than you do, which is why your lawn sucks.

[Darwin]

Interestingly just as many rich people make big donations to Democrats as they do Republicans, especially the media/hollywood crowd. Just proves that people will give money to people that hate them as long as they have access to the corridors of power. To assert that Republicans are more beholden to lobbyists and big donors than Democrats is pure malarkey.

[raptor]

The argument I'm making is that since there is no obligation for the rich to spend money, there is no guarantee that they will spend frivolously to benefit the economy as a whole. Especially in uncertain times such as this, everyone is cutting back, be it the richest snob or the poorest schmuck. Any extra cash kept through lower taxes is not going to be spent but placed in securities. That doesn't have very obvious benefits on the whole.

For every Dupont there is a Buffet, for every Soros a Gates etc

I don't believe that one bit.

[raptor]

It doesn't matter if rich CEO's took a giant pay cut and raised the salary of every employee to $200,000. The poor would spend it all away and be poor again, and the rich would be the ones recieveing, keeping, and investing that money. The money distribution works out the way it is because some people are financially illiterate, no because there is a group of rich guys who hate poor people and just want to profit into infinity.

I like how you equate being poor or bottom-rung employed with being uneducated.

Why not pay workers more? CEOs these days have very disproportionate incomes compared to the majority of employees, even worse today than 30 years ago (which from some recent report said CEOs earn 3x more than they did in the 70s, adjusted for inflation).

The Rich aren't necessarily evil but they are not bound by any sort of moral system. This is why constructs such as tiered taxes and minimum wage exist. Some of you certainly paint an idyllic picture of the Rich being like Gates and Buffett.