Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Republicans Plan Push for Elimination of IRS


Thiebear

Recommended Posts

A question that nobody has brought up yet is....How will this National Sales Tax will motivate the consumer?

According to the plan someone presented, if I consume $24,997, I will pay 10 percent or $2499.70. However, if I consume $25,000, I will pay 15 percent or $3750.

That means that $3 bottle of water at Redskins training camp ends up costing me around $1253.30. I think I will bring my own cooler. Thank you. Unless that is some really great water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zero Cool

A question that nobody has brought up yet is....How will this National Sales Tax will motivate the consumer?

According to the plan someone presented, if I consume $24,997, I will pay 10 percent or $2499.70. However, if I consume $25,000, I will pay 15 percent or $3750.

OK, I hate the idea of a national sales tax, but you've got the idea wrong. The 15% is a marginal tax, so you'll pay 10% up to $25,000, and then 15% on each dollar AFTER that (but not on the original $25,000). Kinda like income tax...hmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A national sales tax will drive down profits and drive out businesses (frankly it will destroy small businesses).

Replacing the income tax with a sales tax will require at least a rate of 20%( in order to match the revenue generated by the income tax). Sales will drop dramatically and overnight create a huge black market. The market will be thrown into a state of chaos.

Another factor that many completely ignore is government enforcement. It will be massive, much more so than today. Imagine the federal government enforcing a sales tax; it will demand the records of every seller and consumer in the country. The last thing we need to do is strengthen and increase the power of the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

OK, I hate the idea of a national sales tax, but you've got the idea wrong. The 15% is a marginal tax, so you'll pay 10% up to $25,000, and then 15% on each dollar AFTER that (but not on the original $25,000). Kinda like income tax...hmmm....

That makes more sense than what was originally posted (not that I agree with the tax or anything)....

Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan

Now if you consumed more then 10k but less then 25k you would pay something like 10 percent in taxes. If you spent 25k but less then 50k you would pay 15 percent, etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

The replacement of the income tax with a simple flat sales tax (or VAT) is one of the best and easily feasible changes that could happen to this country.

No, because it wouldn't work.

Almost every big problem is difficult. This one isn't. I've never understood why the idea has been resisted.

See above.

Whenever there's a big problem and an "easy" solution is offered, chances are the solution ain't that hot. Why is luckydevil the only person who can understand the disastrous consequences of a national consumption tax?

Oh, and VAT would be even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dismantle the IRS? That would mean an end to our needlessly complex tax code that burdens both business and consumers. It would also mean an end to punitive taxes on savings and investments. But the best part is it will do away with the insidious and menacing way taxes are presently collected.

Most states already collect sales tax so let them collect the national sales tax as well. That would allow for the majority of the IRS to be dissolved.

Question. How high will the tax rate need to be to replace all federal taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Destino,

Can you educate us on how milk will cost 10 dollars..

Be as specific as you can? And not: Because Bush will pick 10$..

Wouldnt Milk if it costs 2.00 now will be 2.15

and Theresa Heinz Kerry 5 houses would be supporting us?

And that is your definition of a good idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States are finding it difficult to collect sales taxes as we consumers have found it easy to make tax free purchases on line.

I can see all domestic sellers forced to collect the tax but what about buying goods and services in tax havens abroad. This is already a problem in Europe and Canada, both of which have national sales taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by luckydevil

A national sales tax will drive down profits and drive out businesses (frankly it will destroy small businesses).

Replacing the income tax with a sales tax will require at least a rate of 20%( in order to match the revenue generated by the income tax). Sales will drop dramatically and overnight create a huge black market. The market will be thrown into a state of chaos.

Another factor that many completely ignore is government enforcement. It will be massive, much more so than today. Imagine the federal government enforcing a sales tax; it will demand the records of every seller and consumer in the country. The last thing we need to do is strengthen and increase the power of the federal government.

^^^ There you go. Maybe now peopel can stop assuming I'm a socialist for opposing this retarded idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the original post says a VAT or national sales tax, personally, as part of the evil top 1% it would be nice not having to keep an accountant employed; but i digress

a vat (like is used in europe) taxes items before they get to the shelf. the collection is done at the distributor level. under the european model many items are exempted suchas food and other staples. it is really a more efficient way of collecting sales taxes. the problem is there is no place for the taxes to go but up, they are inflationary and regressive.

I am personally inclined towards the flat tax (on everyone regardless of income)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand this correctly, Bush is trying to get rid of the IRS and make a national sales tax. Lets say we now pay 5% on everything, maybe they will change it to 10% or something.

I hope this is what he is talking about, it would help turn everything around and would be more fair to all pay levels. Also this way illegal aliens, tourists, etc. would be paying also.

Bush is a genious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Thiebear

Not to go crazy on your hate crime against the "handy-capeable"...

But,

Destino, what would you propose?

70% on 200k and above?

0% on 30k and below?

limit the loopholes...

Are you trying to be an @ss? If so, nice job.

I would support a flat tax with no deductions other then money given to charity from which the donor recieved nothing in return. Also I'd like to SS privatized like a 401k that can be cashed in with NO TAX at all.

I'd also like to look into changing what types of income are classified as income and thus taxable. I don't belive any and all money earned should be considered income and taxed accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime this debate comes up I pose this question.

IF a National Sales tax system can be implemeted without a bottom dollar increase to the bottom tax brackets would you support it?

I believe that this system CAN be implemented without placing a further burden on those who can least afford it. If it CANNOT happen that way, I wont support it.

(Im assuming we are talking about the Natl Sales tax system not the FLAT tax which I oppose.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Atlantic Journal article that was posted from the earlier thread. It wasnt exactly what the GOP will be proposing, but seemed as though it could work.

This was mentioned earlier in this thread too.

What are thoughts out there on taxing "consumption"?

The article says that they would simply subtract the amount you have saved and invested from your annual pay, and that figure is what was "consumed".

There would be no tax on consumption under $25,000, 10% on 25,000-100,000, and 15% on 100K plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

The article says that they would simply subtract the amount you have saved and invested from your annual pay, and that figure is what was "consumed".

There would be no tax on consumption under $25,000, 10% on 25,000-100,000, and 15% on 100K plus.

It would discourage consumption. Think of the effects on the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Destino

It would discourage consumption. Think of the effects on the economy.

It would discourage irresponsible consumption and boost needed savings for retirement(IMO).

Remember the tax would only apply to levels above $25,000 and is offset by savings. You can spend as much as you want as long as it's offset by savings and investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Destino

Are you trying to be an @ss? If so, nice job.

I would support a flat tax with no deductions other then money given to charity from which the donor recieved nothing in return. Also I'd like to SS privatized like a 401k that can be cashed in with NO TAX at all.

I'd also like to look into changing what types of income are classified as income and thus taxable. I don't belive any and all money earned should be considered income and taxed accordingly.

Great now you dogging a$$'s also ;):D . Hey dont get snippy at me young man your the one dogging the retarded...

And your reply to that by the way was nothing like i expected and it almost completely is what I think also....

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side issue... I wonder what this would do to charities like the Red Cross or United Way. If there were no tax incentives to spur corporate giving... how deeply impacted would these guys be? I don't think corporate giving would end... there's PR advantages, marketing advantages, etc., but how much lower overall would levels get? Would charities become psuedo government agencies running via appropriation and federal and state grants (not that many of them aren't today)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Destino, what if it actually raises consumption? Do you have anything to back up the claim it would decrease?

Destino I don't think we can make a case for either since I would believe many in the US may not understand it.

It is too hard to say what would happen since it hasn't been done in the US. The most logical thing would be to look at case historty with other nations and see how it affected them. As long as the entire government is for this and not one side saying it is bad, bad, bad, which I see happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An NST, at least all the proposal I've seen, would be almost twice as expensive as the current tax system and when you throw in the necessary oversight and regulation, are much more invasive to boot. With the current system you only ask what is income, any NST already asks what is consumption and those that have income rules still ask the question about income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...