This may not be an original idea or though, but it's my thought as we speak so here it is;

What if we implemented a consumption tax for everyone in the US and then at the end of the year, if you file for taxes with an income above $1,000 and below $100,000 you can write the whole thing off.

Why?

1) Every illegal immigrant would be forced to pay taxes (consumption) - They would be unable to write it off

2) Everyone who makes a pretty good living would also start paying more taxes

What do you think?

Why would there be a write-off? Why should we have progressive taxation on non-necessary, non-luxury items (basically excluding food and energy, maybe rent/mortgage)?

I think a consumption tax is ultimately needed, but keep it simple. You have all the other elements of the tax code to make things progressive and re-distribute incomes. Very simply, if 10% tax makes those $100 jeans too much for you, then buy cheaper jeans. Maybe you don't need a new car this year. Maybe you stick with your old cell phone.

I don't have a problem with a progressive income tax structure, I just think the loopholes and such need to be fixed.

Does it have to be either/or?

I only ask because what happens when people consume less? Would not the revenue go down?

It would seem to me that some sort of blend would benefit more. Not saying it would be easy or cut-and-dry code-wise, but it may ensure a level of income.

(Not to get too far off) but I also see this in the energy arena. FOr me, it's not that we need EVERYBODY on solar or wind or natural gas, but use those as an additive to the market. People in FLA, Texas, Arizona... they would benefit from solar. People in Washington wouldn't! Why try to make it blanket. And to tie it in... kind of like the tax code. Do a bit of both: If you consume A LOT, you ultimately pay more. Just sayin'.

No consumption tax unless you are getting rid of the current income taxes. I don't want this country to be like European ones with high taxes along with a VAT.

tk421;862420 wrote:No consumption tax unless you are getting rid of the current income taxes. I don't want this country to be like European ones with high taxes along with a VAT.

Message from the Feds: "You simply don't understand how this works. First, we must tax your income because you have the audacity of finding and holding down a job. After all, those who do not have jobs deserve some of your income too. Second, you are far too greedy. We must control your consumption and protect our environment by taxing your purchases. After all, illegal immigrants need medical care too."

See how that works?

I'm for elimination of the Federal Income tax and lowering capital gains taxes to zero. To fix the gap in revenue vs. expenditures, I would propose a national sales tax of a certain percent(haven't done the research on what this would be) and CUT SPENDING. If there is ever a time where the government wanting to implement a new entitlement program, the bill would have to clearly show how much % increase in the NST in order to afford the new entitlement.

David Stockman: Deficit Reduction “Flimflam & Swindle,” Taxes Must Rise

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/david-stockman-deficit-reduction-flimflam-swindle-taxes-must-134716994.html

Thanks for the necropost. Got anything recent to add?

queencitybuckeye;863204 wrote:Thanks for the necropost. Got anything recent to add?

Liberals have a tendency to lag.

queencitybuckeye;863204 wrote:Thanks for the necropost. Got anything recent to add?

I always like to pull out stuff and check out how on target people have been. We can't get out of this mess without increasing taxes along with cutting spending. You teabaggers are all the same. Nothing new to add other than that.

Bigdogg;863300 wrote:I always like to pull out stuff and check out how on target people have been. We can't get out of this mess without increasing taxes along with cutting spending. You teabaggers are all the same. Nothing new to add other than that.

I believe I'm on record as not being opposed to a tax increase AFTER the fools in D.C. accomplish actual spending cuts, but don't let anything as bothersome as facts interrupt your name calling.

queencitybuckeye;863378 wrote:I believe I'm on record as not being opposed to a tax increase AFTER the fools in D.C. accomplish actual spending cuts,....

...and guarantee that any tax increases are mandated to go towards paying down the debt. But we all know that the idiots in DC will salivate over the new revenues and find ways to spend it.

+1 to the above.

Moreover, if there is to be a tax increase, let's be honest and realize that the middle class is going to pay for it, instead of perpetuating the baldfaced myth that only the "rich"...are going to be taxed.

The problem is [most[ Americans want socialism but only if they don't have to pay for it. Believe me, if we could opt out most of these programs would be absolutely wiped out tomorrow. The American system will fall apart faster than Europe and other models because we insist on the unsustainable strategy of the rich and corporations paying for everyone. It just can't work.

And the brunt is always disproportionately borne by the middle-class. Hell of an incentive for people who actually have a job and work hard that the govt takes all their disposable income helping to condemn them to never reaching what they work so hard to attain.

gut;864546 wrote:The problem is [most[ Americans want socialism but only if they don't have to pay for it. Believe me, if we could opt out most of these programs would be absolutely wiped out tomorrow. The American system will fall apart faster than Europe and other models because we insist on the unsustainable strategy of the rich and corporations paying for everyone. It just can't work.

And the brunt is always disproportionately borne by the middle-class. Hell of an incentive for people who actually have a job and work hard that the govt takes all their disposable income helping to condemn them to never reaching what they work so hard to attain.

We work to attain the real American dream:

I am in favor of a combined 5% income tax with a consumption tax of 15%. No loopholes.

I didn't mean "versus", the purpose of my post was to make a net for the 11 million illegal immigrants to be taxed. The rest could be written off. I dunno..

Don't tax them... get rid of them! And yes, I did say "get rid" of them.

mella;867835 wrote:I am in favor of a combined 5% income tax with a consumption tax of 15%. No loopholes.

I think, optimally (or most efficient), the best option is some combination of all those.

50% of America (you know, the ones who don't pay taxes) would throw the mother of all hissy fits if the govt starts charging everyone a consumption tax (even if you exclude food, housing and energy, which realistically you can't or the base starts getting pretty small, heck throw in healthcare and we may be talking of like 50% of GDP).

And, once again, a consumption tax will disproportionately hit the middle class. 10-15% to the wealthy who are accumulating assets is nothing....but for the middle class getting a bit of discretionary income to buy something nice the 15% is going to make it tough. But the only way to get more money from the wealthy is a consumption tax, because raising corporate or capital gains tax (which, by the way, is double taxation so their real rate is, in fact, closer to 50%) would be damaging to the economy.

The govt has to think about new and creative ways to redistribute wealth. The concept of take (tax) and give is inefficient and ineffective. We need to think about incentivizing businesses to raise wages and keep jobs here, and then you don't need the govt acting as a middle man to take a dollar from her, (some for himself), and then $0.80 to you. I think we should look at something like a 150% tax deduction on non-officer/owner wages below say $200k - you're making corporate tax rates more competitive and because of the icnreased deduction, you're making higher American wages more competitive. You might do the same thing for equipment purchases, and then eliminate the debt interest deduction (because the purpose of that tax break is ultimately to fund growth and investment, not reward certain types of capital structures).

Bigdogg;863300 wrote:I always like to pull out stuff and check out how on target people have been. We can't get out of this mess without increasing taxes along with cutting spending. You teabaggers are all the same. Nothing new to add other than that.

Um ... did you read the article? He said that the $38 billion cut (which he says only ends up being a couple billion) wasn't enough, and that if that's all that went down, taxes would still need to rise.

He's absolutely right, from that standpoint. If it only saves a couple billion, that's not fixing the problem. It's putting a Band-Aid on a puncture wound.

But cutting spending isn't, or at least shouldn't, be limited to this half-hearted, mediocre sentiment. In reality, this spending cut was little better than stopping to pick up a penny. Sure, we're a little better off than we would be otherwise, but we're still ending up worse off than we are now.

As it is NOW, we cannot count on this deficit reduction to do much, but that doesn't suggest that this is all we could do/have done. Also, if we had cut spending back before this had been allowed to go on for so long, that wouldn't have been the case.

That anyone has any remaining trust in either of the two major parties at this point in time, I just cannot understand.

O-Trap;868196 wrote:That anyone has any remaining trust in either of the two major parties at this point in time, I just cannot understand.

That, and I haven't seen anyone on this board claim (or act) to be a teabagger. Apparently these days if you are against govt handouts you're a terrorist.

gut;868180 wrote: 50% of America (you know, the ones who don't pay taxes)

So incorrect that you look dumb.

Tobias Fünke;868215 wrote:So incorrect that you look dumb.

I think he means don't pay federal income taxes. Everyone pays some sort of tax.

gut;868209 wrote:That, and I haven't seen anyone on this board claim (or act) to be a teabagger. Apparently these days if you are against govt handouts you're a terrorist.

Well, I was pretty big on the Tea Party before it was kidnapped by one of the major parties. Problem is, the Tea Party was all about a lack of governmental intrusion, but both parties believe that the government should intrude on the public too much in one area or another, usually under the argument that it is for the greater good of society (be it financial intrusion or individual liberty intrusion).