Quote from: Supposn on December 04, 2013, 02:05:52 PM

SubSaleMgr, I would hope the U.S. Congress would be advised and guided by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, (USA CBO) with regard to question #1 & #2, the revenue neutral rates of each increment and the time table.  Te important question for each incremental step is the percentage reduction of tax rates per dollar of income and increase per dollars of sales.

I'm a proponent of the same reduction of regular rates per dollar of income for all individuals' and corporate taxes, and the same sales tax rates for all goods and services.
Amongst the advice the CBO would provide to congress is the proportional relationship between income taxes rates reductions and sales taxes increases.   I don't believe it could or should pass the U.S. Congress in a single rather than incremental steps and the reduction of income taxes would have to be simultaneously enacted with the increase of the sales tax.

Respectfully, Supposn

Thank you for your non answer. You are now on my ignore list as this thread has been going on since October and you have not given any substantive responses.

Respectively

Quote from: Supposn on December 04, 2013, 12:52:09 PM
Solar, are you deliberately editing my words the change their intended meaning?
I did not simply write of preferring "our tax policies be sufficiently progressive".

I wrote our "tax policies be sufficiently progressive as to not induce USA's poverty to be greater than otherwise while not inducing net detriment to our economy".

The use of the terms "progressive" or "regressive" are not objective facts or are not mathematically specific.  There's no specific agreed upon percentage of federal income taxes' progressive attributes.

Respectfully, Supposn

I asked a simple and straight forward question, if you can't answer it, just say so.
"So what percentages are you proposing?"

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 04, 2013, 03:24:59 PM
Thank you for your non answer. You are now on my ignore list as this thread has been going on since October and you have not given any substantive responses.

Respectively

It's a weird sort of morbid entertainment, like watching a train wreck.

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 04, 2013, 03:24:59 PM
Thank you for your non answer. You are now on my ignore list as this thread has been going on since October and you have not given any substantive responses.

Respectively

He is here to preach not be questioned. 

Quote from: Supposn on December 04, 2013, 12:13:13 PM
T Bone Again, you're upset because of the unusual affect of these suggested ax considerations is of more proportional benefit to those with lesser incomes?  You prefer our usual tax considerations that provide proportionally and quantitatively more benefits to those earning more rather than less?

Concerning your reference to
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/ :
If you wish us to discuss our nation's welfare policies, initialize a separate thread; I'll post to it.
Within this thread I'm a proponent for incrementally replacing federal income taxes with a general sales tax to the greatest feasible extent.

Respectfully, Supposn

I brought up welfare outlays (I used them as an example of federal transfer payments, or redistribution, but I could have posted all night about other transfer payments) because its such a perfect example of just how screwed we are, and how screwed up the "tax and transfer" system has become.

But your OP proposed incrementally replacing income taxes with some form of consumption tax. It's a clever idea, but it's pie in the sky. It will simply never happen for a host of reasons, many of which I've already pointed out to you and others. First and foremost, if you try to do it incrementally, I guarantee you'll be paying BOTH income taxes AND consumption taxes for the rest of your natural life, and so will your kids and your grandkids. Once the consumption tax riles enough people, and they notice that they're still paying income taxes, they'll start bitching to their Congresscritters and the "increments" will stop -- but that income tax will still be there. And the lib/progs will feel just as free as they do today to raise income tax rates whenever they've got enough votes to do it. For that matter, if they've got the votes, they'll raise the consumption tax too.

The first (actually legal) federal income tax was passed by a Congress controlled by Democrats and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson. There were seven marginal rates: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 percent; most of those who owed anything at all paid the 1% rate. Now the lowest rate is 10% and the highest is 39.6%, though it has been as high as 94% in the past (1945). It stayed right around 90% all  through the Truman years, and finally dropped to 70% early in Ike's first term. It should also be noted that today's bottom brackets are essentially meaningless thanks to generous standard deductions and exemptions and the Earned Income Credit (the primary reasons nearly half pay nothing). My point is that as long as a federal income tax exists, the lib/progs will raise the rates every time they get the chance. And they'll do exactly the same thing with a consumption tax.

The only way the income tax will ever be completely replaced by a consumption is if it is done guillotine-style. "As of January 1, 2018, the IRS shall be abolished, defunded, and disbanded. The income tax shall be replaced with the new Consumption Tax, collectible by the individual state tax agencies and paid monthly to the U.S. Treasury." And for this reason, getting it done absolutely requires a constitutional amendment to completely counter the Sixteenth Amendment, just as the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition).

SupSaleMgr, I apologize for my prior post's misspelling of your name.  I'm grateful that you accepted it as an inadvertent typographical error.

I regret that you do not consider my prior reply as the most complete answer I'm capable of providing.  I only speculate but do not know what determination the U.S. Congressional Budget Office would arrive at if the U.S. Congress would require those answers.

It is more regrettable that the congress has not asked those questions and published the answers.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 05, 2013, 02:01:27 PM
SupSaleMgr, I apologize for my prior post's misspelling of your name.  I'm grateful that you accepted it as an inadvertent typographical error.

I regret that you do not consider my prior reply as the most complete answer I'm capable of providing.  I only speculate but do not know what determination the U.S. Congressional Budget Office would arrive at if the U.S. Congress would require those answers.

It is more regrettable that the congress has not asked those questions and published the answers.

Respectfully, Supposn

How can you support something you do not know what the outcome might be? That is a clear example of a person who buys into lib thought processes of hope all will be well. Liberals follow the "if it feels good it is OK" philosophy. That is not reality. It is not the process, but the result that is important.

In the 1980's there was a big movement in business called process management. My company bought into one of the "10 Step Process" models. We had an old timer as Field VP an he explained it to us on the staff as, "Count to nine and then do it for the tenth step". Our region was always one of the top regions in the company.

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 05, 2013, 02:13:37 PM
How can you support something you do not know what the outcome might be? That is a clear example of a person who buys into lib thought processes of hope all will be well. Liberals follow the "if it feels good it is OK" philosophy. That is not reality. It is not the process, but the result that is important. ...

How can you support something you do not know what the outcome might be? That is a clear example of a person who buys into lib thought processes of hope all will be well. Liberals follow the "if it feels good it is OK" philosophy. That is not reality. It is not the process, but the result that is important.

In the 1980's there was a big movement in business called process management. My company bought into one of the "10 Step Process" models. We had an old timer as Field VP an he explained it to us on the staff as, "Count to nine and then do it for the tenth step". Our region was always one of the top regions in the company.

SupSaleMgr, I do know the outcome of USA adopting this Import Certificate policy; It would increase (more than otherwise), USA jobs and our median wage while significantly reducing our annual trade deficit.
No one can predict next year's or decade's or centuries proportional affects upon our annual GDPs or aggregate economies.  They are additionally affected by factors other than our annual trade deficits; but REGARDLESS of our economy's condition in any specific year, if this Import Certificate policy would be enacted, that year's numbers of jobs, purchasing power of the median wage, and GDP would be greater due to this policies method of reducing our trade deficit.

There's no reason for me to speculate as to the relative proportion of sales tax rate's increase would be revenue neutral to what rate of regular income rate's  reduction.  The U.S. Congressional Budget's office's statisticians can best determine that.  It will not be a perfect determination and they will advice adjustment of those rate changes between each of the incremental stages.

I prefer that the entire incremental transformation duration not extend beyond four years but the CBO accounting and the U.S. Congress's political considerations may determine a different time schedule. 

I believe after some incrimental transformastion ofrevenues, the sales tax will approach an unacceptable rate.  and Congress will make a political determination not to delasy or halt futher incrimental transaformations.  If I'm incorrect, income taxes will be entirely eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a crazy idea. Fiscal responsibility. Some people might want to say the problem is that we aren't taxing people enough. I would respectfully disagree. I don't think the problem is that we aren't taking enough of what others earn. But that's just me. I'm a wild man like that.

We need to raise the eligibility age or raise the tax rate. When it was set up in the 60s, people didn't live as long as they do today. So the amount of years they were eligible to draw, on average, was much lower. Now that the average number of years people consume is much higher, the math doesn't work anymore. It's not evil republican hate of all things good. It's just simple math. Math isn't partisan. Math isn't evil. And neither is my observation.

Quote from: Dan on December 22, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a crazy idea. Fiscal responsibility. Some people might want to say the problem is that we aren't taxing people enough. I would respectfully disagree. I don't think the problem is that we aren't taking enough of what others earn. But that's just me. I'm a wild man like that.

We need to raise the eligibility age or raise the tax rate. When it was set up in the 60s, people didn't live as long as they do today. So the amount of years they were eligible to draw, on average, was much lower. Now that the average number of years people consume is much higher, the math doesn't work anymore. It's not evil republican hate of all things good. It's just simple math. Math isn't partisan. Math isn't evil. And neither is my observation.

Dan, you are suggesting applying logic to solve a problem. That is a foreign concept in Washington.

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 23, 2013, 06:03:41 AM
Dan, you are suggesting applying logic to solve a problem. That is a foreign concept in Washington.

Yep, leftists just like to frame the issue with some label that is a hyphenated form of justice and say "gimmmie the money you earned because you don't deserve it you lousy SOB".