Quote from: Supposn on November 20, 2013, 09:54:08 PM
Solar, regarding your description of China's VAT regulations within reply #73, all republics, all biographies, all nations and all of nations' VATs are not the same.

I'm somewhat more aware of Great Britain's VAT because I can read government's published regulations directly without depending upon other's interpretation.  Great Britain's VAT is much simpler and has much fewer categories than does China.
The details of any sales tax are determined by the governments' law makers and are not particularly dependent upon the taxes administrative method.  A VAT or any other sales tax method or any other U.S. Congressional acts reflect the congress's intelligence or the foolishness.

I'm aware of situations and conditions within which VAT's superior to other sales tax methods but I'm unaware of any situation or conditions where VAT is inferior to any other sales tax methods.

I do not understand how you can consider VAT as socialistic and other sales tax methods as not being socialistic.  What's the difference you do and I do not perceive?
History implies if we adopted a SALES TAX administrative method other than VAT, we would in the future convert to the superior VAT method.  I would be no less a proponent of a federal sales tax if the U.S. Congress did not choose the superior VAT method.

Respectfully, Supposn

I can't believe just how brainwashed you are, that you either can't see it's socialist core, or you know it's their and refuse to recognize it for whatever reason. You claim Europe's VAT is not socialistic, yet ignore the fact that it was the labour party that put it into effect, a party based on Fabian Socialism. That's right, socialists started the VAT.

You claim China's version differs, yet ignore the fact that govt. has it fingers in every step of production and stealing it's cut, that is socialism at it's core.
What's wrong with letting business do what it does and simply tax the end product?
Same result, less bureaucracy.

Take building a house for example, every trade, every step of production is taxed, which means a tax report has to be generated adding to an overbearing bureaucracy, as well as a higher end cost, don't try and deny it.

You fail miserably at building a case for an increase in taxes, you also ignore the crux of the argument that you are an advocate for growing govt, at a time when we should be focusing on gutting the behemoth and taking the restraints of the free mkt. and end punishing the consumer with higher costs.

Solar, regarding our reply #75, refer to:
"Value Added Tax", (i.e. VAT) , reply #25 on: November 21, 2013.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 09, 2013, 10:05:20 PM
Incrementally replacing income taxes with a general consumption tax.

To whatever extent feasible I advocate shifting from taxing net incomes to a general sales tax.  [Sales taxes are not regressive or progressive but they're deemed to be regressive in comparison to progressive income taxes].

By waiving taxes upon selected items that are a greater proportion of lower rather than higher income earners' expenditures, or waiving taxes upon capped threshold of selected items' prices, (although the general sales tax has only a single tax rate) these waivers and caps effectively make the sales tax somewhat a progressive tax.

While any federal income taxes exist, we should strive to decrease our income taxes' inequities or lack of consideration for lower income earners.

I'm a proponent of keeping the top rate of corporate income taxes equal to the top rate of individuals' income taxes.  Otherwise entrepreneurs will declare little or no personal incomes but they'll live very well upon their enterprise's expense accounts.

I'm a proponent of eliminating the per capita reduction of taxable incomes and replacing it with a per capita annually cost of living adjusted amount of reduction of the taxpayers' income taxes, (i.e. tax credits).  Due to progressive tax rates, our per capita reduction of taxable income is of greater per capita benefit to higher income earners, 

I'm a proponent of replacing unjustified income tax waivers and exception and apply those revenue increases to reducing all income tax bracket rates. 

As we simultaneously enact or further increase the federal sales tax, we should also increase the per capita income tax credits and the reductions of all income brackets' tax rates.
The "rounds" of reducing all income brackets' tax rates will eventually begin eliminating the lowest income tax bracket.  As income tax brackets are eliminated, the tax rates of remaining brackets are relatively "flatter" to each other.
After some round of sales tax increase and income tax rates' reduction, I expect that the sales tax will approach an unacceptable rate and the transfer of tax revenues will have to be halted.  If I'm incorrect, federal income taxes will be entirely eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn--I wanna say about 16 years ago, there was a BI-PARTISAN (a D and R--House or Senate members--I don't remember) 'theoretical' FLAT TAX bill (for INCOME TAX).  It was fairly detailed, 'fleshed' out and published in  CONSUMER REPORTS.  I filled it out.  I wanna say it was no more than 2 pages long (magazine length pages)  It would have cost about  me about $2000 more a year (hopefully, we could eliminate the need for accountants, so that would have saved me about $600 a year--the net still would have been + $1400).  Having just built a house, it was definitely not a good deal for us at the time.  I've said ever since--the DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.  Let's see the details!

Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 04:38:53 PM
Supposn--I wanna say about 16 years ago, there was a BI-PARTISAN (a D and R--House or Senate members--I don't remember) 'theoretical' FLAT TAX bill (for INCOME TAX).  It was fairly detailed, 'fleshed' out and published in  CONSUMER REPORTS.  I filled it out.  I wanna say it was no more than 2 pages long (magazine length pages)  It would have cost about  me about $2000 more a year (hopefully, we could eliminate the need for accountants, so that would have saved me about $600 a year--the net still would have been + $1400).  Having just built a house, it was definitely not a good deal for us at the time.  I've said ever since--the DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.  Let's see the details!

C Picture Taker 12, you correctly recognize that even among superior concepts and the best intentions, the devil's always within the details and their execution.

We can try to avoid risks by not attempting to improve our conditions but that is likely to be among the most dishonorable and probably among the most costly of risks.

A general sales tax, (even one that to some extent is waived or decreased to some extent upon what's of greater proportional expenditures of the poorest families' budgets0, is in execution the flattest tax rate that we're likely to actually ever achieve.

There's no "fair tax" but there are more or less equitable forms of taxation.  General sales taxes are not themselves regressive but they are considered so when compared to progressive income tax rates.

Due to tax evasions and loop holes available only to those more wealthy, USA's progressive income tax rates as executed, ain't all that progressive.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on November 27, 2013, 10:17:55 PM
C Picture Taker 12, you correctly recognize that even among superior concepts and the best intentions, the devil's always within the details and their execution.

We can try to avoid risks by not attempting to improve our conditions but that is likely to be among the most dishonorable and probably among the most costly of risks.

A general sales tax, (even one that to some extent is waived or decreased to some extent upon what's of greater proportional expenditures of the poorest families' budgets0, is in execution the flattest tax rate that we're likely to actually ever achieve.

There's no "fair tax" but there are more or less equitable forms of taxation.  General sales taxes are not themselves regressive but they are considered so when compared to progressive income tax rates.

Due to tax evasions and loop holes available only to those more wealthy, USA's progressive income tax rates as executed, ain't all that progressive.

Respectfully, Supposn

I've called you on this one before. When very nearly half of American taxpayers either pay no income tax at all or receive "rebates" of taxes never paid in the first place (the IRS version of welfare), it's kinda ridiculous to say that it "ain't all that progressive." I've asked you before, just how progressive is progressive enough to suit you? So far you have failed to answer that question.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 27, 2013, 10:53:00 PM
I've called you on this one before. When very nearly half of American taxpayers either pay no income tax at all or receive "rebates" of taxes never paid in the first place (the IRS version of welfare), it's kinda ridiculous to say that it "ain't all that progressive." I've asked you before, just how progressive is progressive enough to suit you? So far you have failed to answer that question.

Do you really want an answer, and do you honestly think he can formulate one, let alone one anyone will understand?

I don't believe he's really thought any of this through, nor does he care to, he's sold on liberal dogma, mixed with a heavy syrup of communism, to the point that Capitalism needs to be reigned in at any cost.
So in his mind, govt is ENTITLED to our hard earned money.

His problem has been his need in trying to disguise his tenet,  which is why 90% of his posts make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 27, 2013, 10:53:00 PM
I've called you on this one before. When very nearly half of American taxpayers either pay no income tax at all or receive "rebates" of taxes never paid in the first place (the IRS version of welfare), it's kinda ridiculous to say that it "ain't all that progressive." I've asked you before, just how progressive is progressive enough to suit you? So far you have failed to answer that question.

T Bone Again, I would prefer that 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.

I would suppose that you as I do find my answer to be less than specific. That's because within all determinations of questions requiring considerations of often equally valid concepts and factors, (within economic considerations), there are differences of opinions between even the most honest, knowledgeable and intelligently logical persons of good will.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 03, 2013, 09:39:44 PM
T Bone Again, I would prefer that 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.

I would suppose that you as I do find my answer to be less than specific. That's because within all determinations of questions requiring considerations of often equally valid concepts and factors, (within economic considerations), there are differences of opinions between even the most honest, knowledgeable and intelligently logical persons of good will.

Respectfully, Supposn

Maybe I find your answer to be "less than specific" because your answer is, um, less than specific. In the US, people in "poverty" have things like shelter and refrigerators and cable TV and cars and plenty to eat and free health care PLUS no tax burden whatsoever, other than sales tax. Go to sub-Saharan Africa or parts of Central and South America and tell me how many computers you see. Tell me how many fat people you see. Tell me how many clean people you can find. If you want to see real poverty, you don't have to go farther than some parts of Mexico.

Here's a quote from a recent Forbes magazine article:

Quote"The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work," Tanner and Hughes write in their new paper. "Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit," which offers extra subsidies to low-income workers who take work. "In 13 states [welfare] pays more than $15 per hour."

And again, these people in so-called "poverty" pay no income taxes at all.

The income tax isn't about preventing poverty. It's about funding the government. Doing that -- just that only -- would require a tax code less than 20 pages long, I'd guess. Instead, and precisely because of your kind of thinking, we have a federal tax code that is a stack of paper nearly a foot tall, and currently still growing. The last person who ever mastered the entire tax code probably died forty years ago. There is no such person today. The tax code is so convoluted and complicated that even the IRS cannot give you the same answer to any question twice in a row. IRS agents manning taxpayer help phone lines give incorrect answers a high percentage of the time. Tax attorneys and financial pros don't rely on the IRS for answers about its own code, but seek privately published guides. The most well-known and widely used is the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter. The latest Reporter fills 25 huge binders, numbers nearly 74,000 pages, and takes up nine linear feet of shelf space. The latest list price I could find for a set is $3,855.

According to the IRS's own independent ombudsman, as quoted on Politifact's Georgia website,

QuoteIn a 2010 annual report to Congress, Olson said that taxpayers -- individuals and corporations -- spend about $163 billion annually to comply with the tax code, a sum equal to 11 percent of all the revenue the federal government collected. The cost of compliance was based on 2008 figures.

Even the IRS itself estimated that

QuoteIf tax compliance were an industry, it would be one of the largest in the United States. „„
To consume 7.6 billion hours, the "tax industry" requires the equivalent of 3.8 million
full-time workers.

And all of this is from folks like you wanting to manipulate people with the tax code.

Quote from: TboneAgain on December 03, 2013, 11:42:52 PM
Maybe I find your answer to be "less than specific" because your answer is, um, less than specific. In the US, people in "poverty" have things like shelter and refrigerators and cable TV and cars and plenty to eat and free health care PLUS no tax burden whatsoever, other than sales tax. Go to sub-Saharan Africa or parts of Central and South America and tell me how many computers you see. Tell me how many fat people you see. Tell me how many clean people you can find. If you want to see real poverty, you don't have to go farther than some parts of Mexico. ...

T Bone again, I would prefer that 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.

I am a populist that admits to be a chauvinist with greater concern for my own nation.  I'm not unconcerned with global poverty but we should first set a better example by improving the caretaking of our own economy.  Poverty in the USA indicates that we are not doing as well as we should.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on December 04, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
T Bone again, I would prefer that our tax policies be sufficiently progressive

So what percentages are you proposing?

Quote from: Supposn on October 09, 2013, 10:05:20 PM
Incrementally replacing income taxes with a general consumption tax.

To whatever extent feasible I advocate shifting from taxing net incomes to a general sales tax.  [Sales taxes are not regressive or progressive but they're deemed to be regressive in comparison to progressive income taxes].

By waiving taxes upon selected items that are a greater proportion of lower rather than higher income earners' expenditures, or waiving taxes upon capped threshold of selected items' prices, (although the general sales tax has only a single tax rate) these waivers and caps effectively make the sales tax somewhat a progressive tax.

While any federal income taxes exist, we should strive to decrease our income taxes' inequities or lack of consideration for lower income earners. ...
... Respectfully, Supposn

T Bone Again, you wrote "The income tax isn't about preventing poverty.  It's about funding the government.  Doing that -- just that only -- would require a tax code less than 20 pages long, the purpose of the tax is to provide government revenue".

If the suggestions I mentioned were enacted with a general sales tax, they would of necessity be sufficiently limited so as not to significantly undermine the sales taxes purpose.  Furthermore the tax considerations I suggested are in both theory and effect EQUALLY applicable to the all purchasers without regard to their incomes; but they are in effective of greater consequence to lesser earning tax payers.

Even if we only reduced all individuals' and corporate income brackets by the same percentage (of taxable incomes)  that in aggregate would be revenue neutral, the simultaneous and incremental transformation from income taxes to sales taxes, ALL USA purchasers would be contributing to the our federal GENERAL tax revenue.

After each incremental transformation step, to whatever extent any lower income tax brackets are eliminated, fewer individuals would pay income taxes.  That certainly doesn't increase income taxes complexity.

Reduction of tax brackets' regular rates reduces the gap between those rates and some tax loop holes thus reducing loophole benefits and enabling greater regular rate reductions with no loss of tax revenues.
Due to the complete loss of some of those special tax considerations benefits, they'd be of no use to anyone and it would be illogical to retain those regulations.  Similarly the reduction of other tax exception benefits may become so small as to not justify their retention.  In time as such tax loop holes are eliminated, our tax regulations to some extent would be more simplified.

Note that all of this can be achieved if other than incrementally and simultaneously we only revenue neutrally transferred our revenue sources from income taxes to a federal sales tax with no additional effort to further simplify our income tax regulations.  You and I agree if any income tax laws exist, their regulations should be further simplified.

Respectfully Supposn

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

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 just have three questions.

1) What is the ultimate % for the national sales tax?
2) What is the time span to incrementally replace the income tax?
3) Would the sales tax be applied incrementally in concert with replacing the income tax?

Thank you.

Quote from: Solar on December 04, 2013, 10:09:27 AM
So what percentages are you proposing?

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

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 04, 2013, 12:46:08 PM
I just have three questions.

1) What is the ultimate % for the national sales tax?
2) What is the time span to incrementally replace the income tax?
3) Would the sales tax be applied incrementally in concert with replacing the income tax?

Thank you.

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