Fair(er) tax

[Kadmos]

Once again how is one state getting more from the feds that another state isn't? Granted there are some projects, bridges and airports a congressman inserts as pork but it's not coming from the state level up to the feds, it's coming from the elected federal reps attempting to buy votes.

Wouldn't it be easier to outlaw pork and make the regs apply to all states equally? (and yes I know that would be impossible to do).

The point I'm trying to get at, apparently not very well, is perhaps something more like if one state isn't collecting enough tax to support it's own schools, then the federal government should say "either collect X% of sales tax to help do that, or we aren't going to give you money for roads"

Does it seem fair that Texans pay $1 into federal income taxes and gets back 85 cents to Texas in federal spending while New Mexicans pay $1 and get back $2?

I think what I'm getting at is more of a flat tax being tried at the states level, most of which already collect state sales tax, coupled with the discontinuation of federal funding for some things as a way to test out the flat tax idea, to ease some of the burden on the federal budget and for those states that essentially overpay for their services to keep their money in their state a bit more.

[Warthogg]

I would disagree, it would be bad for business owners on several levels.

You may disagree of course but you are wrong. Again, business taxes are collected and remitted by business as a matter of course.


Wart

[Warthogg]

I assume they either shaft them in different ways, such as property taxes, use taxes, fuel taxes, suck the money from the federal government, or actually either don't spend that much and have balanced budgets, or just really crappy services.

My thought was, is this possibly a good way to see if we can ease up on federal spending, and have the states dealing with their own stuff?

What I find remarkable is that you would advocate a corrupt federal government with control over more dollars. I mean the .gov has done such a fine management job thus far huh. How many trillion do we owe ?? Maybe around $15.4 trillion ??



Wart

[Kadmos]

What I find remarkable is that you would advocate a corrupt federal government with control over more dollars. I mean the .gov has done such a fine management job thus far huh. How many trillion do we owe ?? Maybe around $15.4 trillion ??



Wart

The idea seems to me it would be about putting things back at the state level, ultimately trying to get the fed out of the states, making the tax burden and control local.


Going to what you just said to MRiddick

You may disagree of course but you are wrong. Again, business taxes are collected and remitted by business as a matter of course.

You could at least hear him out before flat out calling him wrong.

Seems to me the current system has several advantages to business, not having to pay taxes on a loss for starters. Being accountable only for the tax burden on profit is a huge deal.

Having to pay 20% sales tax on the things you need to run your business is one hell of a burden especially on a small business, especially when as it stands under the current system you can write off all those expenses.

Most small businesses already fail, add 20% to the cost of nearly everything they need to start up and operate, completely without the safety net of being able to write off expenses and losses and even more are likely to fail.

With that said, think it'll be easier to get a small business loan to start up? It's already a bitch and that extra pressure will make that even harder.

Also add 20% to the cost of things and do you think American manufacturing will ever come back?

How many farmers you think will fold up when a combine costs 20% more, seed cost 20% more, etc, etc.

Face it, the flat tax only really helps those businesses who can afford to put off their tax burden until the customer can pay it for them. Which is the mega corporations.

They can pay the 20% more for the stuff in the short and mid term while the system works out to kill small business who can't.

[mriddick]

The point I'm trying to get at, apparently not very well, is perhaps something more like if one state isn't collecting enough tax to support it's own schools, then the federal government should say "either collect X% of sales tax to help do that, or we aren't going to give you money for roads"

Does it seem fair that Texans pay $1 into federal income taxes and gets back 85 cents to Texas in federal spending while New Mexicans pay $1 and get back $2?

I think what I'm getting at is more of a flat tax being tried at the states level, most of which already collect state sales tax, coupled with the discontinuation of federal funding for some things as a way to test out the flat tax idea, to ease some of the burden on the federal budget and for those states that essentially overpay for their services to keep their money in their state a bit more.

What I'm getting at is why is there a difference, my guess is it's because of pork (earmarks), unless you fix the pork there will always be that difference. There isn't a code that says Texas should get $1 for every 85 cents sent in taxes or that NY should get 85 cents for every $1 in taxes, the code is for the most part the same. If there's a difference it's because of pork and unless you fix that it's not going to be any difference in the end.

I think we need to know why Texas gets $1 for every 85 cents sent, then address the problem from that angle rather then having the fed start dictating to the states what they must do.

[mriddick]

You may disagree of course but you are wrong. Again, business taxes are collected and remitted by business as a matter of course.


Wart

I really don't think so, I'm doubtful anyone in retail wants the feds sticking their nose into every sale. You and most others don't have an idea what power this would put the fed over local business. Right now anyone can start a retail business and that act is pretty much between you and the state you live in except for maybe your quarterly tax payments. I would not be so quick to claim business wouldn't mind giving this up.

[El Laton Caliente]

I assume they either shaft them in different ways, such as property taxes, use taxes, fuel taxes, suck the money from the federal government, or actually either don't spend that much and have balanced budgets, or just really crappy services.

My thought was, is this possibly a good way to see if we can ease up on federal spending, and have the states dealing with their own stuff?

Texas and Alaska own lots of state land with oil leases, that is how they keep from having state income tax.

I would like to see a fair tax that also taxes unearned income i.e. dividends, interest, but at a lower rate and at all levels on every transaction.

[btcave]

While Oregon has no sales tax, Washington to our north has no income tax. Our budgets are not experiencing the massive shortfalls of tax heavy states like California. Hmmm.


Here is state by state tax information.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html#Income

[Warthogg]

The idea seems to me it would be about putting things back at the state level, ultimately trying to get the fed out of the states, making the tax burden and control local.


Going to what you just said to MRiddick



You could at least hear him out before flat out calling him wrong.

Seems to me the current system has several advantages to business, not having to pay taxes on a loss for starters. Being accountable only for the tax burden on profit is a huge deal.

Having to pay 20% sales tax on the things you need to run your business is one hell of a burden especially on a small business, especially when as it stands under the current system you can write off all those expenses.

Most small businesses already fail, add 20% to the cost of nearly everything they need to start up and operate, completely without the safety net of being able to write off expenses and losses and even more are likely to fail.

With that said, think it'll be easier to get a small business loan to start up? It's already a bitch and that extra pressure will make that even harder.

Also add 20% to the cost of things and do you think American manufacturing will ever come back?

How many farmers you think will fold up when a combine costs 20% more, seed cost 20% more, etc, etc.

Face it, the flat tax only really helps those businesses who can afford to put off their tax burden until the customer can pay it for them. Which is the mega corporations.

They can pay the 20% more for the stuff in the short and mid term while the system works out to kill small business who can't.

You may disagree of course but you are wrong. Again, business taxes are collected and remitted by business as a matter of course.

You could at least hear him out before flat out calling him wrong.

mriddick's position here is consistent and I have heard him before on this issue. Here he is just wrong. The question is not whether business should collect a federal sales tax but would to do so be onerous for business. No, not onerous.


Wart

[Warthogg]

I really don't think so, I'm doubtful anyone in retail wants the feds sticking their nose into every sale. You and most others don't have an idea what power this would put the fed over local business. Right now anyone can start a retail business and that act is pretty much between you and the state you live in except for maybe your quarterly tax payments. I would not be so quick to claim business wouldn't mind giving this up.

Consider hitting 'RESET' on this issue as you are simply wrong. The state and feds are in on all start-ups. Take a look at payroll taxes.

In most states local and state sales taxes are already collected.

There are so many areas where the fed .gov is an onerous presence. Having business collect a national sales tax is not one of those areas.


Wart

[Warthogg]

The idea seems to me it would be about putting things back at the state level, ultimately trying to get the fed out of the states, making the tax burden and control local.


Seems to me the current system has several advantages to business, not having to pay taxes on a loss for starters. Being accountable only for the tax burden on profit is a huge deal.

Having to pay 20% sales tax on the things you need to run your business is one hell of a burden especially on a small business, especially when as it stands under the current system you can write off all those expenses.

Most small businesses already fail, add 20% to the cost of nearly everything they need to start up and operate, completely without the safety net of being able to write off expenses and losses and even more are likely to fail.

With that said, think it'll be easier to get a small business loan to start up? It's already a bitch and that extra pressure will make that even harder.

Also add 20% to the cost of things and do you think American manufacturing will ever come back?

How many farmers you think will fold up when a combine costs 20% more, seed cost 20% more, etc, etc.

Face it, the flat tax only really helps those businesses who can afford to put off their tax burden until the customer can pay it for them. Which is the mega corporations.

They can pay the 20% more for the stuff in the short and mid term while the system works out to kill small business who can't.

We are so far apart that I don't see any common ground.


Wart

[dishman]

I'm not getting the reasoning for forcing a state to come up with a sales tax if they don't want one. What business is it of the feds if a state has a sales tax or not? States ought to be free to devise a system they want and fund their own form of government as they wish.

IMO the feds should simply have a simple progressive tax without deductions, you make XXXX dollars, you pay XX dollars, and stay out of the states business in anything not delegated to them in the Constitution.

i have to agree

[LAGC]

Well, I for one still plan on relocating to Montana in the near future, as soon as I find a decent-paying job up there, and I won't be putting up with this regressive sales tax non-sense. To increase Federal revenues, we just need to get rid of all the exemptions and loopholes the rich currently exploit to get out of paying income taxes as it currently stands.

Keep in mind: the income tax originally was only meant to target the rich. Today, its like the exact opposite. The middle-class gets squeezed while the rich laugh all the way to the bank.

[Warthogg]

i have to agree

Quote Originally Posted by mriddick View Post
I'm not getting the reasoning for forcing a state to come up with a sales tax if they don't want one. What business is it of the feds if a state has a sales tax or not? States ought to be free to devise a system they want and fund their own form of government as they wish.

And here I also agree.


Wart

[Warthogg]

Keep in mind: the income tax originally was only meant to target the rich.

One little prob is the .gov gets to say who is rich.

The 'Alternative Minimum Tax' was a tax targeting ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE wealthy families who paid no tax. The Dimocrats could not stand such a thing and crafted the Alternative Minimum Tax so those who owed no tax would have to pay any way.

As many as FIFTY MILLION TAXPAYERS may be hit with the ATM in 2015. You see, the Dims did NOT index the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation.



Wart

[GreenhawK]

Kadmos the prices of goods would not increase by 20% at the consumer level or by businesses. Corporate and other taxes that are imbedded into products would end up being taken out of the price of the goods. I believe that the price of goods would ultimately go down due to the increase in competition. Right now we are among the highest in the world for corporate taxes. Those would be gone making the US the lowest in the world. That along with the increase in the rewards for taking the risk of starting new businesses would increase competition driving costs down.

Lowering taxes on the job creators along with removing stupid regulations are what we need to bring back jobs.

We recently lost a manufacturer to Mexico because of new Obama EPA regulations. It was cheaper for the company to build a whole new plant in Mexico than to retool the existing plant here. Alabama is a right to work, not very union friendly state, so it was not the workers wages. The people that work for the plant were offered their job at their wages, and it is being built close enough to Texas for people to still be able to live in the US, but work in Mexico.

[mriddick]

No businessman will want to see his out the door pricing increase 20%+, whether everyone has more money or not if there's a price on the shelf and everyone has add in 20-25% more it's going to impact sales.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

The idea seems to me it would be about putting things back at the state level, ultimately trying to get the fed out of the states, making the tax burden and control local.


Going to what you just said to MRiddick



You could at least hear him out before flat out calling him wrong.

Seems to me the current system has several advantages to business, not having to pay taxes on a loss for starters. Being accountable only for the tax burden on profit is a huge deal.

Having to pay 20% sales tax on the things you need to run your business is one hell of a burden especially on a small business, especially when as it stands under the current system you can write off all those expenses.

Most small businesses already fail, add 20% to the cost of nearly everything they need to start up and operate, completely without the safety net of being able to write off expenses and losses and even more are likely to fail.

With that said, think it'll be easier to get a small business loan to start up? It's already a bitch and that extra pressure will make that even harder.

Also add 20% to the cost of things and do you think American manufacturing will ever come back?

How many farmers you think will fold up when a combine costs 20% more, seed cost 20% more, etc, etc.

Face it, the flat tax only really helps those businesses who can afford to put off their tax burden until the customer can pay it for them. Which is the mega corporations.

They can pay the 20% more for the stuff in the short and mid term while the system works out to kill small business who can't.

Passage of legislation that repeals the income tax, the payroll tax in its entirety, the estate tax, the gift tax, the capital gains tax, the alternative minimum tax, the self-employment tax, and the corporate tax.
Businesses will be scrambling to come back.

[Goodman]

The question is not whether business should collect a federal sales tax but would to do so be onerous for business. No, not onerous.


Wart

Agreed. As 1POM points out most business owners would be thrilled to simplify their federal tax remittances in this way. Payroll tax alone is enough to warrant hiring an employee to handle it.

[mriddick]

Agreed. As 1POM points out most business owners would be thrilled to simplify their federal tax remittances in this way. Payroll tax alone is enough to warrant hiring an employee to handle it.

Do you think the sales tax would handle itself, It's going to figure out how much is owed and submit the forms by itself? When I last ran a retail business I think I spent more time on figuring out the sales tax then payroll, maybe not alot but enough that I really don't think there's going to be much of a savings there.

The retail businessmen I think would support this idea are those who make so much they would personally benefit from the change and those who think they might be able to scam the system (which is why I think there will be lots of IRS auditors looking after businesses). No retail businessman is going to support a consumption tax.