Former President Argues for 'Consumption Tax' on E-Commerce

TechLarry said:
The one President that was able to get us into a surplus comes up with this crap? I guess the Bush's screwed us up worse than I thought.
Click to expand...

Don't fall for the propoganda that Congress spews!

While the President leads it's Congress who passes the spending bill yet someone they've convinced the American public to always blame the guy who serves 4 or 8 years, while it's not unusual for members of Congress to serve for decades, and spend like a drunken sailor the entire time.

Think of the President as a babysitter, if they do a good job they might be able to get the child to clean up their room and not spill their milk and cookies, but some kids are just complete little monsters and can't be controlled no matter how hard to you....... and that's Congress. lol!

The sadest part is that members of Congress from both sides are only getting worse. Ironically they feel that if they ACT civilized on the House or Senate floor that people wont connect them with their vile behavior when off the floor and/or behind closed doors.
 
let's add new taxes, lower consumer spending and business profits. that'll boost the economy for sure!
it makes sense... right?
 
UrielDagda said:
Well when we keep cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations, it causes a shortfall. Which causes a federal cut, which causes a state cut, then in the end at the local level the people don't want the cuts, and have to pay higher local or state taxes to fund them.
Click to expand...

Yeah because the fact that we have the worlds 2nd highest corporate income tax rate isn’t enough.... (1st is/was Japan).

Taxing the "rich" is not the answer comrade....

Did you know that 50% of households pay zero or negative federal taxes?
 
Majinhoju said:
let's add new taxes, lower consumer spending and business profits. that'll boost the economy for sure!
it makes sense... right?
Click to expand...

hell yeah, it worked in the 30's and its working now... As long as a democrat implements it all is good.
 
Cutting spending sounds all well and good until you actually start getting down to where you should start cutting. The biggest target that could afford cuts without really causing much in the way of long-term harm is almost undoubtedly the military and even there you'd be shedding jobs, at least temporarily. That isn't exactly something most politicians want on their record.

Are you going to cut funding for school lunches for kids, or cut grandpa and grandma's social security, or cut environmental protections even further, or cut financial oversight even further? There are very few good targets and the ones that are most obviously wasteful and unnecessary (oil and farm subsidies for instance) have huge lobbies protecting them.

There is also the simple fact that we haven't really been raising taxes; we've been shifting them away from corporations and the rich more and more towards the middle class over the last few decades with entirely predictable results.

Raising taxes really isn't a poor idea, at least if they're progressive and not regressive. Lets start by doing something about the effective corporate tax rate being so wildly out of whack (what is it now, 3%, 5%?) and see where we wind up.
 
Axdrenalin said:
Both of these QFT!!! The only way to reduce debt is to reduce SPENDING
Click to expand...

This is factually incorrect and it's not even worth debating that point. You can reduce a financial deficit by either reducing expenditures or increasing receipts. Increasing certain kinds of expenditures can also serve to increase receipts, so it's really nowhere near so black and white as you're attempting to portray things.

Oh and the government spending more? Much of that is a little thing called inflation (yes it affects them too). Might as well whine that you're unable to buy a new car for $300 while you're at it.

Although if you oppose spending increases I suppose you'd be in favor of a ban on drug patents, seeing as most of the research is already conducted with public funds and medicare/medicaid/va then get to pay out the nose for the very drugs that funding created.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
Yeah, that's good for the economy. :rolleyes:

I thought that a lot of the basis for founding this country was to escape this crap. :(
Click to expand...

The basis for founding of this country was so you can vote someone in whom you think will not tax you - or tax you if you agree to it. Not that so we don't have tax period. No taxation without representation.

Fortunately he's not in power anymore, so..

Unfortunately the people we vote in never keep their promise too, so..
 
Bladestorm said:

Click to expand...

Sounds good, now where is your $20k that you owe for every year you went to school? We'll gladly refund your taxes if you pay for that... oh yeah those roads you probably drove on, lets not forget those, you like using clean water to I suppose don't you?
 
itanium said:
Did you know that 50% of households pay zero or negative federal taxes?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this might have something to do with it:

Figure_4.gif


How dare those slackers with 0.3% of wealth distribution not pay taxes!
 
sfsuphysics said:
Sounds good, now where is your $20k that you owe for every year you went to school? We'll gladly refund your taxes if you pay for that... oh yeah those roads you probably drove on, lets not forget those, you like using clean water to I suppose don't you?
Click to expand...

eh, clean water's a private utility where we pay our monthly bills for anyways, but yeah on the rest.
 
According to the IRS in 2007

The top 1% of earners make 19% of the wages but carry 37% of the income tax burden
The top 5% make 33% of the wages but pay 57% of the income taxes collected
The top 10% make 44% but pay 69%
The top 25% earn 68% of the wages but pay 85% of the income taxes
The top 50% earn 87% of the wages but pay 97% of the income taxes
The bottom 50% make 13% of the wages yet pay only 3% of the income taxes


And finally Treasury Department tax analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger portion of the individual income taxe burden to higher income taxpayers.

In 2005, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (lower tax rates, $1,000 child credit, reducing the marriage penalty), the tax percentage for lower-income taxpayers fell, while the percentage of income tax for higher income workers rose (one example is that it was projected that without the tax cuts that the top 1% of earners would pay 31% of the income tax burden instead of the 37% they are with the tax cuts.)

Ironically in 1980 the top 5% of wage earners only accounted for 37% of the income tax burden that now the top 1% account for, but of course we can't let facts get into the way of class warfare politicians push so as to distract people from the truth.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Sounds good, now where is your $20k that you owe for every year you went to school? We'll gladly refund your taxes if you pay for that... oh yeah those roads you probably drove on, lets not forget those, you like using clean water to I suppose don't you?
Click to expand...

Because those services can only be paid for by the forcible stealing of other peoples money right? :rolleyes:
 
Tax burdens are at a 60 year low when adjusted for inflation. Quit fucking complaining. You want to fight a trillion dollar war in kerblamostan and give away tax dollars to the rich and corporate then ya gotta pay for it somehow.
 
Gym Rat said:
And spare me the sob story of education cuts. The federal government spends something like $10, 000 per student per year and that's not counting what state and local governments spend and we're still getting crappie results. The problem is the unions, not funding.
Click to expand...

What a stupid statement. Are you telling me that my friend in Austin who gets one ream of paper a month to make copies for her (mostly latch-key) kids has enough money to make it work? Are you telling me that every time I pay for something out of my pocket for my wife's classroom because the district can't afford it that there's enough money in education?

When was the last time you were in a classroom responsible for thirty students, with no respect from parents who think that their angel can't do a thing wrong and no support from administration? All while making a "crappy" wage? When was the last time you put yourself in harms way just by going to work- like my friend who has been assaulted twice in five years here in Houston? He's not a cop or in the army, he's a teacher. Are you telling me that more money for security couldn't have helped him?

And what about those unions you vilify? Unions don't matter a wit here in Texas (or a bunch of other states), so I'm a bit confused about your point. Are you really trying to attack teachers but don't have the balls to do it directly?

Gym Rat said:
Slapping a tax on everything that's not nailed down isn't an amsw. Cutting spending is. If the imperial federal governments 4 trillion dollars budget, let me say that again, 4,000, 000,000,000 budget is underfunded, taking more money from an already overtaxed and underemployed population is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Another idiotic statement. This year we are borrowing forty cents of every dollar we are spending. You think spending cuts alone are going to remedy that? We could completely do away with the DOD and still barely be halfway to balancing the budget. Or, look at it another way- every piece of government spending would need to be reduced by forty percent. Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, DOD, DHS, all of it. But we can't reduce the interest payments on the debt 40%, so everything else must be cut even more. Pick your spending cuts and tell me if they pay for the deficit.

No doubt that spending must be cut, but to arbitrarily take tax cuts off the table is just plain dumb. All of these things that everybody wanted- schools, roads, bridges, clean streets, police and firefighters, just to name a few- cost money and have been charged to our credit card. Now they have to paid for (to say nothing of continuing them in the future). How you gonna do that?
 
Bladestorm said:
Because those services can only be paid for by the forcible stealing of other peoples money right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So this is where you go on about how taxation is theft and those that benefit from the order and infrastructure that government provides shouldn't have to pay towards its continued well-being?

:rolleyes:
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
According to the IRS in 2007

The top 1% of earners make 19% of the wages but carry 37% of the income tax burden
The top 5% make 33% of the wages but pay 57% of the income taxes collected
The top 10% make 44% but pay 69%
The top 25% earn 68% of the wages but pay 85% of the income taxes
The top 50% earn 87% of the wages but pay 97% of the income taxes
The bottom 50% make 13% of the wages yet pay only 3% of the income taxes


And finally Treasury Department tax analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger portion of the individual income taxe burden to higher income taxpayers.

In 2005, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (lower tax rates, $1,000 child credit, reducing the marriage penalty), the tax percentage for lower-income taxpayers fell, while the percentage of income tax for higher income workers rose (one example is that it was projected that without the tax cuts that the top 1% of earners would pay 31% of the income tax burden instead of the 37% they are with the tax cuts.)

Ironically in 1980 the top 5% of wage earners only accounted for 37% of the income tax burden that now the top 1% account for, but of course we can't let facts get into the way of class warfare politicians push so as to distract people from the truth.
Click to expand...



In 2007, the bottom 50% of income earners earned less than $32,879. The top 50% obviously earned from that number and up. The top 1% earned $410,096 and up.

How much money do you think you can squeeze out of someone making $30k per year? Even if we had a flat percentage tax on income, the percentage of taxes paid versus income earned wouldn't be equal. In fact, if the bottom 50% of the income earners in 2007 DID account for 50% of the taxes, we would be in dire straits indeed. I would imagine in that scenario that government tax receipts would fall by an incredible amount.
 
Majinhoju said:
let's add new taxes, lower consumer spending and business profits. that'll boost the economy for sure!
it makes sense... right?
Click to expand...

Well, as long as you want to spend a trillion bucks a year on defense, yeah.

Currently our retard congress is proposing about $41bn in handouts to business and the wealthy while cutting about $40bn from programs for the poor. Meanwhile nobody has the balls to actually say "$1 trillion on defense? Are you insane?" because then they'd be painted as pansy ass commie/terror/islamo sympathizers.

As to taxing the wealthy: most income at the level is capital gains. Not salary. As such they pay a much lower percentage of their actual income compared to the average American. For some reason we think investment income is somehow special. Money you don't actually work for should be taxed lower? IMHO (and this would impact me, so suck it) capital gains should be taxed like any other income. There should be no special out just because you're an investor. That is patently unfair to those who earn a regular wage.
 
I fall into the bottom 50% category and paid over $1000 in federal income taxes, that isn't "nothing" to me... maybe I should start having kids or something. :eek:
 
ianken said:
Tax burdens are at a 60 year low when adjusted for inflation. Quit fucking complaining. You want to fight a trillion dollar war in kerblamostan and give away tax dollars to the rich and corporate then ya gotta pay for it somehow.
Click to expand...

Funny how those who talk about giving 'away tax dollars to the rich" and corporations never seen to care about the billions we give away to babyfactories, crackheads and others who choose to sit on their ass and leech off the national nipple.

As for tax burdens, in the last 30 years taxes collected have increased roughly 500%, which amounts to an average of 16.66% increase per year, but federal spending has increased by more then 600%, or an average of over 20% per year.

Now using Social Security COLA increases as a guide we see that the federal government claims that during those 30 years the cost of living has only increased 113.7% or an average of 3.79% a year. and during that same time the Consumer Price Index only increased 260%, or an average of 8.66% per year.

By all measures the amount of taxes collected per year far outstrip any cost of living increases and yet federal spending still manages to drwarf any increase in taxes collected and yet people still say we need to raise taxes?
 
mdameron said:
In 2007, the bottom 50% of income earners earned less than $32,879. The top 50% obviously earned from that number and up. The top 1% earned $410,096 and up.

How much money do you think you can squeeze out of someone making $30k per year? Even if we had a flat percentage tax on income, the percentage of taxes paid versus income earned wouldn't be equal. In fact, if the bottom 50% of the income earners in 2007 DID account for 50% of the taxes, we would be in dire straits indeed. I would imagine in that scenario that government tax receipts would fall by an incredible amount.
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we need to increase taxes on the poor, or anyone else. My point was simply that those claiming that the "rich" aren't paying their "fair share" and that the poor and middile class are the ones paying the taxes are talking out of their ass.

My view isn't that anyone is undertaxed but instead that we are all overtaxed and that Congress needs to stop spending like drunken sailors on shore leave for the first time in 6 months!
 
Sure they are for more taxes.

Thats cuz they got money to burn not like the average joe who is barely scraping by.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a small tax on all purchases regardless of it being online or not. Of course this would be assuming the Government would make the necessary cuts and start spending with-in their means. Since that's not going to happen then I'll pass on paying sales tax on online purchases.
 
bpmurrGT said:
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a small tax on all purchases regardless of it being online or not. Of course this would be assuming the Government would make the necessary cuts and start spending with-in their means. Since that's not going to happen then I'll pass on paying sales tax on online purchases.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the problem, whenever they increase a tax or add a new one it takes place immediately, and in some cases has been retroactive, and then they always promise to spending cuts 4-6 years down the line, so it's someone else's problem, but those spending cuts never actually happen.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
As for tax burdens, in the last 30 years taxes collected have increased roughly 500%, which amounts to an average of 16.66% increase per year, but federal spending has increased by more then 600%, or an average of over 20% per year.
Click to expand...


Interesting that. I don't know where your 500% number comes from but think if it like this:

Today the tax burden is higher than it was 30 years ago.

Today corporations and the wealthy pay less in taxes than they have in the since before the turn of the century (1900, not 2000).

In other words, the middle class is being beaten up bigtime.
 
Looks like a Commie, talks like a Commie, Smells like a Commie to me. Hillary says she is resigining as Secretary of State, however she has no interest in Obama's job.
 
OldSchool said:
At the end of Clinton's administration we were on track to pay down the debt, he does know what he is talking about....
Click to expand...

he raised taxes out the wazoo, and it was at a time when the nation's economy was doing it's near best (ironically, due to a bubble). So yeah, a surplus was gonna happen. Of course, we spent it all, lol. Paying back the debts we have is already a part of our annual budget since who knows when.
 
itanium said:
Yeah because the fact that we have the worlds 2nd highest corporate income tax rate isn’t enough.... (1st is/was Japan).
Click to expand...

Did you know that this is a paper number only that no corporation actually pays? Due to huge loop holes and shipping profits to foreign countries (through such things like the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich, that also some how involves Bermuda), most companies - especially large multinationals actually pay less than half the stated 35% rate, placing the U.S. as one of the countries with the LEAST tax burden on corporations in the world?

itanium said:
Taxing the "rich" is not the answer comrade....
Click to expand...

Your communist diatribes are ridiculous and intended only to inflame. There are barely any communists in the world at all today, and certainly not in American politics.

If you like a biblical spin on things how about "from those whom much is given, much is expected". Was Jesus a communist?

IMHO a highly progressive income tax is the ONLY way to balance the budget and ethically support the society that all of us benefit from. I - too - would prefer lower taxes, and smaller government but when it comes to it, I'd rather tax those working on their 7th yacht and their villa on the Riviera than those struggling to feed their children, and there is no fundamental economic reason we couldn't. A highly income progressive tax rate does nothing to hurt the economy.

As an example, witness the period of the largest and longest sustained American economic growth. Our golden age if you will, or the golden age of American CAPITALISM , namely the post-war period.

From 1940 through 1963 the top marginal tax bracket rate (the rate that the super wealthy pay on the last dollar they earn) never dipped below 80%. It peaked in '44 and '45 at 94%. Even throughout the 70's it stayed at or above 70% Today it is ~35%.

itanium said:
Did you know that 50% of households pay zero or negative federal taxes?
Click to expand...

I question this number, but even so, did you know that the household income of that 50% Is ~$40k a year or lower? The mean household income of this group is just over $20k. How can a family live on that? If they don't pay any income taxes, I'm glad. We shouldn't be charging them any income taxes. They have a hard enough time getting by as it is. These aren't lazy people milking the state for money. Sure abusers exist, but they are few and far between. In many cases these are people who are working 3 jobs just to try to feed their families.


whiz187 said:
Looks like a Commie, talks like a Commie, Smells like a Commie to me. Hillary says she is resigining as Secretary of State, however she has no interest in Obama's job.
Click to expand...

Anyone who uses the term communist in todays American political climate only demonstrates one thing, which is that they don't know shit about shit.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036990394 said:
Did you know that this is a paper number only that no corporation actually pays? Due to huge loop holes and shipping profits to foreign countries (through such things like the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich, that also some how involves Bermuda), most companies - especially large multinationals actually pay less than half the stated 35% rate, placing the U.S. as one of the countries with the LEAST tax burden on corporations in the world?



Your communist diatribes are ridiculous and intended only to inflame. There are barely any communists in the world at all today, and certainly not in American politics.

If you like a biblical spin on things how about "from those whom much is given, much is expected". Was Jesus a communist?

IMHO a highly progressive income tax is the ONLY way to balance the budget and ethically support the society that all of us benefit from. I - too - would prefer lower taxes, and smaller government but when it comes to it, I'd rather tax those working on their 7th yacht and their villa on the Riviera than those struggling to feed their children, and there is no fundamental economic reason we couldn't. A highly income progressive tax rate does nothing to hurt the economy.

As an example, witness the period of the largest and longest sustained American economic growth. Our golden age if you will, or the golden age of American CAPITALISM , namely the post-war period.

From 1940 through 1963 the top marginal tax bracket rate (the rate that the super wealthy pay on the last dollar they earn) never dipped below 80%. It peaked in '44 and '45 at 94%. Even throughout the 70's it stayed at or above 70% Today it is ~35%.



I question this number, but even so, did you know that the household income of that 50% Is ~$40k a year or lower? The mean household income of this group is just over $20k. How can a family live on that? If they don't pay any income taxes, I'm glad. We shouldn't be charging them any income taxes. They have a hard enough time getting by as it is. These aren't lazy people milking the state for money. Sure abusers exist, but they are few and far between. In many cases these are people who are working 3 jobs just to try to feed their families.




Anyone who uses the term communist in todays American political climate only demonstrates one thing, which is that they don't know shit about shit.
Click to expand...
When the rich move their business and income to other countries, then others are hurt. Capital moves to the places it is treated the best.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we need to increase taxes on the poor, or anyone else. My point was simply that those claiming that the "rich" aren't paying their "fair share" and that the poor and middile class are the ones paying the taxes are talking out of their ass.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll spend a moment talking out of my ass, then.

Can you tell me why our tax code has wealthy hedge fund managers paying taxes at a lower percentage rate than their secretaries?

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/05/13/hedge-fund-manager-loophole-looks-like-a-goner/

Seriously, some of these guys make billions a year and pay lower taxes (as a percentage) than a McDonald's worker.

Is that talking out of my ass, or do I have a point? Is the hedge fund manager paying their fair share?
 
Zarathustra[H];1036990394 said:
As an example, witness the period of the largest and longest sustained American economic growth. Our golden age if you will, or the golden age of American CAPITALISM , namely the post-war period.

From 1940 through 1963 the top marginal tax bracket rate (the rate that the super wealthy pay on the last dollar they earn) never dipped below 80%. It peaked in '44 and '45 at 94%. Even throughout the 70's it stayed at or above 70% Today it is ~35%.
Click to expand...

Also, to continue the "did you know" series...

Did you know that in the late 60s, early 70s (again in the golden age of American Capitalism) bank executives made ~$90k a year?

Sure, due to inflation thats more money now (~$450k) but it just shows how out of wack executive compensation has gotten.

The wealthy have lobbied successfully to reduce their own taxes at the same time as their own income has skyrocketed in the last 40 years, sticking those with mid to low incomes with footing the bill for government and services that they - too - enjoy. It's really quite sickening.

And no. This is not a communist concept. It is an idea that capitalism ought to work for everyone, not just the top 1% of earners.

Communism is a society with no freedoms and no real personal ownership, where the government owns all means of production and plans out the society. We don't have that today really anywhere in the world, and certainly not in america. We also don't have a single elected official in America that I am aware of proposing that this is what we ought to do.

So get yourselves educated, stop whining about communism/socialism and inform yourselves about what really is going on in this country. We more or less have a small, super rich oligarchy (The most famous of which are the Koch brothers) lobbying like hell to make themselves richer by removing regulation and lowering their (but no one else's) taxes, who now ever since the citizens united supreme court decision last year, can buy themselves exactly the politicians they want...

America is barely even a democracy anymore because of this.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036990394 said:
From 1940 through 1963 the top marginal tax bracket rate (the rate that the super wealthy pay on the last dollar they earn) never dipped below 80%. It peaked in '44 and '45 at 94%. Even throughout the 70's it stayed at or above 70% Today it is ~35%.
Click to expand...

Why do people continue to use the high tax rates used to pay for our involvement in WW2 as a benchmark?
 
PersonalJ said:
When the rich move their business and income to other countries, then others are hurt. Capital moves to the places it is treated the best.
Click to expand...

If they think they can get it better elsewhere, let them go.

Firstly, the idea that the american tax burden is high internationally is a complete sham. Except for a handful of countries (Ireland, Bermuda, etc) we are it because of all of our loopholes and exceptions. Sure the published rates are mid grade in the world but those who count are not paying them.

They can move places where there is no educated workforce or infrastructure to support their business goals if they want to.

I'm willing to bet that even if we adjust these things to make them more equitable, the U.S. will wind up being pone of the best deals for capital in the world.

Why do you think companies stay in Japan despite their high tax rates?

The american people have been bamboozled into thinking that unless they are extremely accommodating to the super rich and corporations they are going to leave and american will be ruined. This simply isn't the case. Most of the businesses that can leave and go to places where labor is cheap already have. The businesses that remain are those that require a high tech, highly educated workforce, and quite frankly, you have to get pretty high up in the tax rate until you find other countries with these same assets (think Europe and Japan)

I mean, even The Gate's and Warren Buffet are on record stating that they think it is fair that those who earn more should carry more of the burden. I guess they won't be going anywhere if that changes...
 
computer said:
Why do people continue to use the high tax rates used to pay for our involvement in WW2 as a benchmark?
Click to expand...

Were we in WW2 in 1963? :rolleyes:

It was a massive period of economic growth unparalleled by any other in american history (Yes, including Raegans precious 80s). And taxes were high for high income people. It flies straight in the face of the theory that high taxes on the rich hurts growth and scares away captial.
 
Aphex242 said:
Seriously, some of these guys make billions a year and pay lower taxes (as a percentage) than a McDonald's worker.

Is that talking out of my ass, or do I have a point? Is the hedge fund manager paying their fair share?
Click to expand...

Some people are so indoctrinated by their crazy-ass tea-party movements that they can't even see things right in front of their eyes.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036990478 said:
If they think they can get it better elsewhere, let them go.

Firstly, the idea that the american tax burden is high internationally is a complete sham. Except for a handful of countries (Ireland, Bermuda, etc) we are it because of all of our loopholes and exceptions. Sure the published rates are mid grade in the world but those who count are not paying them.

They can move places where there is no educated workforce or infrastructure to support their business goals if they want to.

I'm willing to bet that even if we adjust these things to make them more equitable, the U.S. will wind up being pone of the best deals for capital in the world.

Why do you think companies stay in Japan despite their high tax rates?

The american people have been bamboozled into thinking that unless they are extremely accommodating to the super rich and corporations they are going to leave and american will be ruined. This simply isn't the case. Most of the businesses that can leave and go to places where labor is cheap already have. The businesses that remain are those that require a high tech, highly educated workforce, and quite frankly, you have to get pretty high up in the tax rate until you find other countries with these same assets (think Europe and Japan)

I mean, even The Gate's and Warren Buffet are on record stating that they think it is fair that those who earn more should carry more of the burden. I guess they won't be going anywhere if that changes...
Click to expand...
Eastern Asia has a highly skilled workforce and very low labor costs and governmental costs. Globalization makes the high tax rates of old highly uncompetitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top