I'm waiting for the Progressive talking points now:

 

fair share

living wage

common sense

---

No we don't live in a democracy

Correct. It's an oligarchy. That is fashioned off of the disproportionate wealth gap coupled with the current campaign finance system. That's what Bernie is railing against. 

---

I only have a problem with the income tax. The State doesn't have a right to my income before it ever reaches my hands. Tax consumption all you want, tax property, tax however you want but when you take it before I see it, you've eliminated my choice and now are using the monopoly of force the state holds.

 

ALL income taxes in ALL forms constitute theft and any politician compliant with any form of income tax is a thief. 

---

what else do you call someone who wants to rob wealthy people under the guise of them paying their "fair share" to give to other people?

 

I don't like taxes, but they are a necessary evil and a scarce-resource society. It is basically the rent you pay for living within the United States. I don't mind paying taxes because I live within the US. However, I do mind paying taxes that go beyond protection and infrastructure. I don't believe I should be paying taxes, especially high taxes, because someone wants "free" college, "free" healthcare, or "free" housing.

My concern with college education is that a bachelor's degree is already worth roughly what a high school degree was worth fifty years ago. If things continue on in this fashion, a bachelor's degree is going to be worth its weight in toilet paper--and I'm not even talking about nice toilet paper, I'm talking about the sandpaper they give you in Motel 6. Instead of trying to funnel every American kid through a four-year school that may or may not result in them being a $120k tax sink that waits tables for a living, encourage more kids to go to trade schools and two-year programs that might not qualify them to run a company, but it will qualify them to make a very good living over the long term in a blue-collar field that's got all of its baby boomers retiring, and very few Gen-X'ers or millennials interested in replacing them.

 

Cool.  Do we get badges?  Or maybe some kind of evil nickname.  I call "The Valeyard!"

Ok, that's cool and all, and I'm happy for you, but you do remember that Moffat basically retconned the Valeyard out of existence, right?

 

who is Sanders to tell anyone that they have enough?

If you're sitting on a billion dollars while a guy two miles away is sitting on his cardboard box, the morally right thing to do is to help the guy with a cardboard box out. Don't set him up for life, but giving him help to get back on his feet--assuming his troubles are not his own doing--is, imo, morally right.

 

It shouldn't be a legal requirement, though, and that's an area where Sanders and I disagree strongly. I still want to see this country on a straight consumption tax, but good luck finding a liberal politician to support that policy. The propaganda pipeline has pumped out the story that a consumption tax would be an unfair burden on the poor, minorities, whatever, even though in reality it's a fair, unbiased tax for everyone.

 

I only have a problem with the income tax. The State doesn't have a right to my income before it ever reaches my hands. Tax consumption all you want, tax property, tax however you want but when you take it before I see it, you've eliminated my choice and now are using the monopoly of force the state holds.

 

ALL income taxes in ALL forms constitute theft and any politician compliant with any form of income tax is a thief. 

Sometimes I think you're crazy. Sometimes I think you're brilliant. Sometimes I think you're a little bit of both, and I like that about you. Don't ever change.

---

Still hate the consumption tax.  It's going to have to be much higher than anyone thinks it will be, and yes ultimately will be a bigger burden on the poor/middle class.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Still hate the consumption tax. It's going to have to be much higher than anyone thinks it will be, and yes ultimately will be a bigger burden on the poor/middle class.

It would probably be astronomical something along the lines of 35% or more, but the reason for it is the same. It takes taxes out of the shadow and now you know exactly how much government is costing you, it gives you the citizen back the power of choice and it encourages Savings over spending.

---

It would probably be astronomical something along the lines of 35% or more, but the reason for it is the same. It takes taxes out of the shadow and now you know exactly how much government is costing you, it gives you the citizen back the power of choice and it encourages Savings over spending.

And who is in better position to save?  


Family A who makes $250,000/year 

or Family B who makes $50,000/year?


You should know how much the government is taking out of your paycheck anyway.  I always did, and my wife knows how much is being withheld from her paycheck.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Still hate the consumption tax. It's going to have to be much higher than anyone thinks it will be, and yes ultimately will be a bigger burden on the poor/middle class.

It's only a burden if you make it one. If it were put into effect, I would certainly reevaluate my spending to minimize the hit, and that's something anyone can do. If someone making $40k chooses to buy a $25k new car then whine about how unfair the tax is, screw them. Buy a two-year-old certified pre-owned of the same make and model for $18k and pay less/no tax on it (depending on how the tax is implemented).

---

It's only a burden if you make it one. If it were put into effect, I would certainly reevaluate my spending to minimize the hit, and that's something anyone can do. If someone making $40k chooses to buy a $25k new car then whine about how unfair the tax is, screw them. Buy a two-year-old certified pre-owned of the same make and model for $18k and pay less/no tax on it (depending on how the tax is implemented).

I've never bought a new car in my life.  You do realize that people who are working say minimum wage spend most of their money, right?   You're acting like most poor people are out buying $30,000 cars, when most of them aren't.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I've never bought a new car in my life. You do realize that people who are working say minimum wage spend most of their money, right? You're acting like most poor people are out buying $30,000 cars, when most of them aren't.

If everyone is paying a 35% consumption tax with no income tax levied, how is it an enhanced burden on the lower class?


I believe the Fair Tax plan calls for a check to be mailed out to partially refund the taxes. I don't remember the exact details, but a consumption tax is not designed to screw the lower class. It's designed to unscrew everyone screwed by the current tax code, simplify the process and dramatically cut back on fraud, and dramatically scale back the IRS (and the IRS' budget).

---

Again, who spends most of their income?  The poor do.  So the poor will be paying more taxes.  


Who saves most of their income?  The rich do.  So the rich will be paying less taxes.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Again, who spends most of their income?  The poor do.  So the poor will be paying more taxes.  


Who saves most of their income?  The rich do.  So the rich will be paying less taxes.

Not that I disagree in principle but I doubt the rich would be paying less in total amount just in percentage of total income spent since as you said they can save much more. They would however buy more expensive goods.  

---

Not that I disagree in principle but I doubt the rich would be paying less in total amount just in percentage of total income spent since as you said they can save much more. They would however buy more expensive goods.  

What I mean is it'd be much more burdensome on the poor.  Many of them aren't able to save.  So it'd hurt them a lot.  Not to mention retired people who've saved money not expecting a consumption tax to replace the income tax.

 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Again, who spends most of their income?  The poor do.  So the poor will be paying more taxes.  


Who saves most of their income?  The rich do.  So the rich will be paying less taxes.

 

The only consumption tax being proposed right now is the fair tax and it's still a progressive tax, it sends out prebates to offset the argument that the poor would be hit harder. 

 

That aside on pure principle, let's explore this concept who spends more who saves more and who benefits. Let me ask you, how aside from building more wealth by making better income does one stop being poor, the answer is spending less and saving more. Eventually that poor individual can learn to save they can create financial wealth, shouldn't we encourage that as a society? When was the last time a poor person spent themselves out of poverty? 

 

The idea that incentivizing savings would hurt the poor is ignoring the reality that in order to end poverty you have to learn to save. And I refuse to accept that no one can save, I've scraped the bottom of the economic barrell and yes there are times it's difficult but in today's modern world there are always cuts that can be made in order to save for tomorrow. It's a principle one HAS to learn if they are EVER going to get out of poverty. Otherwise an increase in income will result in no better of a financial situation they just simply spend more as they make more. 

 

As for the rich they are still paying taxes when they spend their money, which make no mistake the rich do spend money. 

 

Again all of this really isn't even an issue in the Fair Tax since it only taxes new items once, anytime an item is resold or sold as used it's non-taxed. I think there might be an exception on some larger purchases such as a home or car that have a lower used purchasing tax but I'm not sure, it's been a while since I read the fair tax proposal. The Fair Tax also as I mentioned before replaces things such as the EIC with pre-bate checks based on income level and family size, they argue it would be better to pre-bate families then to tax them and send them a refund at the end of the year. The Fair Tax isn't designed to change the tax burden or distribution of taxes it simply changes how their collected.

---

The only consumption tax being proposed right now is the fair tax and it's still a progressive tax, it sends out prebates to offset the argument that the poor would be hit harder. 

 

That aside on pure principle, let's explore this concept who spends more who saves more and who benefits. Let me ask you, how aside from building more wealth by making better income does one stop being poor, the answer is spending less and saving more. Eventually that poor individual can learn to save they can create financial wealth, shouldn't we encourage that as a society? When was the last time a poor person spent themselves out of poverty? 

 

The idea that incentivizing savings would hurt the poor is ignoring the reality that in order to end poverty you have to learn to save. And I refuse to accept that no one can save, I've scraped the bottom of the economic barrell and yes there are times it's difficult but in today's modern world there are always cuts that can be made in order to save for tomorrow. It's a principle one HAS to learn if they are EVER going to get out of poverty. Otherwise an increase in income will result in no better of a financial situation they just simply spend more as they make more. 

 

As for the rich they are still paying taxes when they spend their money, which make no mistake the rich do spend money. 

 

Again all of this really isn't even an issue in the Fair Tax since it only taxes new items once, anytime an item is resold or sold as used it's non-taxed. I think there might be an exception on some larger purchases such as a home or car that have a lower used purchasing tax but I'm not sure, it's been a while since I read the fair tax proposal. The Fair Tax also as I mentioned before replaces things such as the EIC with pre-bate checks based on income level and family size, they argue it would be better to pre-bate families then to tax them and send them a refund at the end of the year. The Fair Tax isn't designed to change the tax burden or distribution of taxes it simply changes how their collected.

What happens when people stop buying anything new to avoid paying any taxes at all and companies go out of business costing jobs due to sharp decline in sales?

---

What happens when people stop buying anything new to avoid paying any taxes at all and companies go out of business costing jobs due to sharp decline in sales?

Supply and demand at work, if people stop buying new things tax revenues are down then cuts have to be made.


Realistically we're such a consumer driven economy people are always going to buy new things.

---

What happens when people stop buying anything new to avoid paying any taxes at all and companies go out of business costing jobs due to sharp decline in sales?

I'd be even more spartan about it than Fair Tax, applying the same tax to used item purchases that would be applied to new item purchases. Infinite taxation? Yeah, but there are two pros to that:

 

1. It eliminates fraud committed by marking a new item as used to steal business from competitors with lower tax rates.

 

2. It would allow for the effective tax rate to be lower.

 

I also think Adam Smith would have something to say about a used-based economy in the Fair Tax scenario. As more and more people flocked to used items--let's say cars for this example--the demand for those used cars would go up, as would the prices. Meanwhile, dealerships would be sitting on new cars they struggled to sell, and those prices would be lowered. Eventually, some Clark Howard wannabe would notice that it costs less to buy a brand new Ford Focus than it does to buy a three-year-old Ford Fusion with 50,000 miles on it, and you'd see people shift back to the new-build market to take advantage of lower prices to compensate for higher taxes. The new/used equilibrium would balance itself out over time, and we'd be right back to people with cash burning a hole in their pocket buying new cars, and people who want to save money on taxes buying used, but they'd buy those used cars at a premium.

 

It should also be noted that most of what we buy physically can't be purchased used. I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in toilet paper from Goodwill.

---

I'd be even more spartan about it than Fair Tax, applying the same tax to used item purchases that would be applied to new item purchases. Infinite taxation? Yeah, but there are two pros to that:

 

1. It eliminates fraud committed by marking a new item as used to steal business from competitors with lower tax rates.

 

2. It would allow for the effective tax rate to be lower.

 

I also think Adam Smith would have something to say about a used-based economy in the Fair Tax scenario. As more and more people flocked to used items--let's say cars for this example--the demand for those used cars would go up, as would the prices. Meanwhile, dealerships would be sitting on new cars they struggled to sell, and those prices would be lowered. Eventually, some Clark Howard wannabe would notice that it costs less to buy a brand new Ford Focus than it does to buy a three-year-old Ford Fusion with 50,000 miles on it, and you'd see people shift back to the new-build market to take advantage of lower prices to compensate for higher taxes. The new/used equilibrium would balance itself out over time, and we'd be right back to people with cash burning a hole in their pocket buying new cars, and people who want to save money on taxes buying used, but they'd buy those used cars at a premium.

 

It should also be noted that most of what we buy physically can't be purchased used. I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in toilet paper from Goodwill.

I guess that makes sense. IT does stand to reason that if you incentivize buying used by not taxing it all that it would have some effect on business and jobs that was kind of what I was getting at. 

 

My grandmother tried to give me a used toilet seat many years ago. 

---

Supply and demand at work, if people stop buying new things tax revenues are down then cuts have to be made.


Realistically we're such a consumer driven economy people are always going to buy new things.

Realistically there is no way to know what the impact on businesses and jobs would be should you give people a huge reason to not buy new goods. 

 

Safe to assume services are not taxed at all under this plan?

---

Realistically there is no way to know what the impact on businesses and jobs would be should you give people a huge reason to not buy new goods.


Safe to assume services are not taxed at all under this plan?

Correct

---