6 ms·

Sales tax only puts the burden disproportionally on the poor. If you're making millions of dollars a year you're probably only spending a small fraction of it

by smokinn 15y ago

Sales tax only puts the burden disproportionally on the poor. If you're making millions of dollars a year you're probably only spending a small fraction of it and if there's only sales tax you pay tax on a percentage of what you spent. So let's say you made 30 million dollars and spent 8 and say the sales tax rate is 15%. In this case you paid 1.2MM in tax for a marginal tax rate of 4%. On the other hand if your income is 15k you're probably spending it all or very close. In which case your marginal tax rate is 15%. Not all that fair I'd say. Personally I like the progressive income tax method. I just think capital gains should be taxed as income rather than at a flat 13% and no special rules for corporations either. If they want to be people they can be taxed like people. If they want to be different then we can just get rid of corporate personhood. I doubt they'd like that much.

protomyth 15y ago
You can actually fix a lot of the sales tax issues by excluding certain categories (e.g. unprepared food, clothing). I am more a flat rate tax person with a base exclusion per tax payer (i.e. your kid working a summer job files for themselves) and only one tax line (the government can divide it between SS, FICA, etc). As a curiosity, I was trying to figure out what would actually be revenue neutral. I think somewhere in $20K deducible then 17 - 20% flat rate after that. It is really not that easy to get all the information needed to play with various scenarios.
- tokenadult 15y ago
  You can actually fix a lot of the sales tax issues by excluding certain categories (e.g. unprepared food, clothing). That's what my state historically has done. The last time I bought an expensive business suit, the purchase was free of sales tax, because a business suit is clothing. There is always pressure, however, to broaden the categories of goods and services that are subject to sales tax, especially when a government unit has a shortage of revenue relative to what it is expending to maintain government programs.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    Creeping sales taxes is a problem and pretty much why I think Cain's 9-9-9 plan is not a good idea. I would prefer to leave sales tax to the states and have the federal do other.
- rmc 15y ago
  excluding certain categories (e.g. unprepared food… And then there are court cases about whether this is a biscuit or a cake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Cake_or_biscuit.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Cake_or_biscuit.3F
  - protomyth 15y ago
    No doubt it gets to be a little weird, but unprepared is a pretty well defined thing if you don't do what the federal food stamp program in the US does and type of food shouldn't really matter. If it requires cooking or is primarily an ingrediant then no tax. US weird stuff: If you buy a frozen burrito it is ok. Unless the store has a microwave and you use it, then it is not ok. If you go home and microwave it then it is ok.
    - test5625 15y ago
      Most of foods (fruits, chocolate, chips, milk, just anything) don't require cooking, and are not primarily ingredients.
      - protomyth 15y ago
        milk and fruits are often considered ingredients in these laws - chocolate is too, chips are often taxed. stuff gets complicated depending on who wrote the law. what's with the down votes - I didn't write the damn laws like this
    - anamax 15y ago
      > unprepared is a pretty well defined thing Okay - provide the definition and we'll see how well it works. Note that we're not as good at this sort of thing as tax lawyers. If you go with/retreat to "we'll get experts to define it" ....
      - protomyth 15y ago
        I don't have to define it, it is in the law books in several states - even the fed food stamp program has its own version which I mentioned is problematic.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
If they want to be different then we can just get rid of corporate personhood. Ok, lets do that. A group of people working in a building with the word "GE" on it just violated a contract with you. Who do you sue? With corporate personhood, you sue the legal person GE. Your responsibility ends here - it's up to parties within the entity GE to figure out who goes to court, and the court can seize any GE assets if GE refuses to pay (assuming you win). That's all corporate personhood is - a convenient legal interface. I'm not sure why you believe having this particular interface necessitates double taxation of income earned by corporate owners. Could you explain?
- sp332 15y ago
  GP is talking specifically about the recent ruling that corporations have e.g. freedom of speech, and can therefore send lots of money to fund political campaigns. It basically gives corporations a huge amount of political power.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    As far as I'm aware, no such ruling ever occurred. Corporations are currently barred from funding federal political campaigns. They also have no free speech rights that your (non-person) printing press or cell phone lack. (Before you cite Citizens United vs FEC, please go read what it actually says. In short, the decision is about the free speech rights of the human owners of a corporation. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html )
schwit 15y ago
This can be fixed in at least 2 simple ways. 1. Don't tax the essentials. Milk, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, non-luxury cloths. Don't tax the first $50 of a pair of shoes. Don't tax the first $15k of a car. 2. Determine the average monthly sales tax paid for by a person at the poverty line. Have the government send a monthly check for that amount, minus 10%, to every citizen. Everyone should pay some tax.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Distinguishing essentials from non-essentials is anything but simple.
- bestes 15y ago
  Does this mean my MacBook would be tax free?! I could live without milk for the rest of my life, but not my computer. Oh, and I love the way you slip in "lean" meats. Your own political agenda at work.
rick888 15y ago
"Not all that fair I'd say." If you have a more expensive house, you are paying a much higher tax rate and not actually getting much more out of the money you are putting into the system. If their kids are in private schools, they are also paying double or triple what the average person is paying, yet not actually using it. There are also many taxes wealthy people pay for but never actually use. so it's fair. Also, whatever happened to "paying your fair share"? This phrase seems to be going around a lot, yet it only seems to involve people at a certain income level. I just wish people would be a little more honest.
- eropple 15y ago
  I just wish people would be a little more honest. Amusing, given that you're repeating deceitful rhetoric designed to be hostile to anyone except those already making a fairly fantastical amount of money. (The drive to defend those who are screwing the one repeating said rhetoric is common, though I still don't understand it.) Paying for services you don't consume as a reason to consider one's tax burden "higher than it should be" is a meaningless red herring. I don't have kids at all, yet I pay for schools--I'm paying NaN% more for no value! Holy shit, that's a lot of % (or is it? I can't evaluate it). I don't use public transporation, but I'm paying for it. I am not rich, but I also don't use these services. You do not, however, see me complaining about it, and I do not attempt to handwave that into some claim that I am paying higher taxes than I "should be." (As it happens, I should be taxed higher. I would vote in favor of someone who wanted to tax me higher, should those in higher brackets be appropriately taxed as well. This will never happen, because screwing the middle class is the name of the game.) Your implication that "the 1%" are in fact paying anything remotely close to an equitable sum is made so is left at best curious by the staggering wealth gap that simply continues to grow at an unsustainable pace within this country. If "the 1%" paid their fair share, that would not be happening. Yet it is. Res ipsa loquitur.

by smokinn 15y ago

protomyth 15y ago

You can actually fix a lot of the sales tax issues by excluding certain categories (e.g. unprepared food, clothing). I am more a flat rate tax person with a base exclusion per tax payer (i.e. your kid working a summer job files for themselves) and only one tax line (the government can divide it between SS, FICA, etc). As a curiosity, I was trying to figure out what would actually be revenue neutral. I think somewhere in $20K deducible then 17 - 20% flat rate after that. It is really not that easy to get all the information needed to play with various scenarios.

tokenadult 15y ago
You can actually fix a lot of the sales tax issues by excluding certain categories (e.g. unprepared food, clothing). That's what my state historically has done. The last time I bought an expensive business suit, the purchase was free of sales tax, because a business suit is clothing. There is always pressure, however, to broaden the categories of goods and services that are subject to sales tax, especially when a government unit has a shortage of revenue relative to what it is expending to maintain government programs.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Creeping sales taxes is a problem and pretty much why I think Cain's 9-9-9 plan is not a good idea. I would prefer to leave sales tax to the states and have the federal do other.
rmc 15y ago
excluding certain categories (e.g. unprepared food… And then there are court cases about whether this is a biscuit or a cake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Cake_or_biscuit.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Cake_or_biscuit.3F
- protomyth 15y ago
  No doubt it gets to be a little weird, but unprepared is a pretty well defined thing if you don't do what the federal food stamp program in the US does and type of food shouldn't really matter. If it requires cooking or is primarily an ingrediant then no tax. US weird stuff: If you buy a frozen burrito it is ok. Unless the store has a microwave and you use it, then it is not ok. If you go home and microwave it then it is ok.
  - test5625 15y ago
    Most of foods (fruits, chocolate, chips, milk, just anything) don't require cooking, and are not primarily ingredients.
    - protomyth 15y ago
      milk and fruits are often considered ingredients in these laws - chocolate is too, chips are often taxed. stuff gets complicated depending on who wrote the law. what's with the down votes - I didn't write the damn laws like this
  - anamax 15y ago
    > unprepared is a pretty well defined thing Okay - provide the definition and we'll see how well it works. Note that we're not as good at this sort of thing as tax lawyers. If you go with/retreat to "we'll get experts to define it" ....
    - protomyth 15y ago
      I don't have to define it, it is in the law books in several states - even the fed food stamp program has its own version which I mentioned is problematic.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

If they want to be different then we can just get rid of corporate personhood. Ok, lets do that. A group of people working in a building with the word "GE" on it just violated a contract with you. Who do you sue? With corporate personhood, you sue the legal person GE. Your responsibility ends here - it's up to parties within the entity GE to figure out who goes to court, and the court can seize any GE assets if GE refuses to pay (assuming you win). That's all corporate personhood is - a convenient legal interface. I'm not sure why you believe having this particular interface necessitates double taxation of income earned by corporate owners. Could you explain?

sp332 15y ago
GP is talking specifically about the recent ruling that corporations have e.g. freedom of speech, and can therefore send lots of money to fund political campaigns. It basically gives corporations a huge amount of political power.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  As far as I'm aware, no such ruling ever occurred. Corporations are currently barred from funding federal political campaigns. They also have no free speech rights that your (non-person) printing press or cell phone lack. (Before you cite Citizens United vs FEC, please go read what it actually says. In short, the decision is about the free speech rights of the human owners of a corporation. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html )

schwit 15y ago

This can be fixed in at least 2 simple ways. 1. Don't tax the essentials. Milk, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, non-luxury cloths. Don't tax the first $50 of a pair of shoes. Don't tax the first $15k of a car. 2. Determine the average monthly sales tax paid for by a person at the poverty line. Have the government send a monthly check for that amount, minus 10%, to every citizen. Everyone should pay some tax.

Symmetry 15y ago
Distinguishing essentials from non-essentials is anything but simple.
bestes 15y ago
Does this mean my MacBook would be tax free?! I could live without milk for the rest of my life, but not my computer. Oh, and I love the way you slip in "lean" meats. Your own political agenda at work.

rick888 15y ago

"Not all that fair I'd say." If you have a more expensive house, you are paying a much higher tax rate and not actually getting much more out of the money you are putting into the system. If their kids are in private schools, they are also paying double or triple what the average person is paying, yet not actually using it. There are also many taxes wealthy people pay for but never actually use. so it's fair. Also, whatever happened to "paying your fair share"? This phrase seems to be going around a lot, yet it only seems to involve people at a certain income level. I just wish people would be a little more honest.

eropple 15y ago
I just wish people would be a little more honest. Amusing, given that you're repeating deceitful rhetoric designed to be hostile to anyone except those already making a fairly fantastical amount of money. (The drive to defend those who are screwing the one repeating said rhetoric is common, though I still don't understand it.) Paying for services you don't consume as a reason to consider one's tax burden "higher than it should be" is a meaningless red herring. I don't have kids at all, yet I pay for schools--I'm paying NaN% more for no value! Holy shit, that's a lot of % (or is it? I can't evaluate it). I don't use public transporation, but I'm paying for it. I am not rich, but I also don't use these services. You do not, however, see me complaining about it, and I do not attempt to handwave that into some claim that I am paying higher taxes than I "should be." (As it happens, I should be taxed higher. I would vote in favor of someone who wanted to tax me higher, should those in higher brackets be appropriately taxed as well. This will never happen, because screwing the middle class is the name of the game.) Your implication that "the 1%" are in fact paying anything remotely close to an equitable sum is made so is left at best curious by the staggering wealth gap that simply continues to grow at an unsustainable pace within this country. If "the 1%" paid their fair share, that would not be happening. Yet it is. Res ipsa loquitur.