Post #104,677
6/3/03 6:50:56 PM
|
Russia leads the way in flat tax innovation
[link|http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834174_mz034.htm|http://www.businessw...3834174_mz034.htm]
Excerpt:
Only a minority of Russians question the fairness of taxing lower-, middle-, and upper-income workers at the same low rate. A survey last year by Russia's Public Opinion Foundation showed 43% of Russians polled supported the flat-tax-based system, compared with 36% who want a more progressive tax code. Some offer a cynical explanation. Nobody expects the wealthy and powerful to pay their fair share anyway. "Why have a progressive tax system that doesn't work?" asks Vladimir Redkin, an economist at Russia's Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." -- Robert Firth
|
Post #107,693
6/28/03 1:00:48 PM
|
LOVE IT!
Tax as people spend. What better way to encourage people to save?
I could go for a national 3% sales tax (in addition to state/local) on EVERYTHING. Groceries, prescriptions, home sales, stock purchages, nothing should be exempt!
1. Even people VISITING the country pay the tax. Everyone pays. The more you spend, the more you pay. 2. Imported goods would be taxes upon sale. 3. Gasoline. 4. We completely get rid of the IRS, tax code, etc. Abolish both personal and corporate tax. 5. Tax stock purchases, margin contracts, everything. EVERY PURCHASE!
I know people say that it would impact the poor, but I think the more important thing would be a lot MORE people would be paying this tax. Even tourists visiting the country. Foreign nationals, everyone. There are way too many people opting out of the system now, by getting paid in cash, by getting things like taxes on dividends exempted.
If we export goods to another country, they should pay the 3% also.
The tax is simple to administer, simple to collect.
If you save your money, you will be exempt from the tax. I'll bet we would have 3x what we have now from income tax (where we have exempted the poor and the rich from paying).
But, also, we need to make sure that EVERYONE in the country can work and earn a decent wage. Some people may need expectations reset. (Not everyone can make $300K a year).
Glen Austin
|
Post #107,730
6/28/03 7:40:51 PM
|
Re: LOVE IT!
\r\nI could go for a national 3% sales tax (in addition to state/local) on EVERYTHING. Groceries, prescriptions, home sales, stock purchages, nothing should be exempt!\r\n \r\n\r\n To replace the existing income tax, that would be a 30% sales tax, on average. \r\n
--\r\n Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #107,741
6/28/03 11:27:40 PM
6/28/03 11:29:26 PM
|
Don't think so...
First of all, the real taxable income percentage greater than 30% only for those who are effectively single, or making a LOT of money.
Second, a lot of people who buy things here don't pay income tax. Nowhere near 30%. Even 10% might be tolerable for a time.
Need someone to come up with the total value of all goods "sold" in the country. Then total the income tax receipts and divide the total values of all goods sold by the tax receipts to come up with a figure.
It's nowhere even close to 30%. I'm in a decent income job, two parent family (one primary income), and 3 kids and our income tax rate is only 20%, once you figure out mortgage interest, charitable giving, kid deductions, etc. I would expect the total income tax collected for all "taxable" income earned in the country to yield an average tax rate of 13-15 percent.
So, I would expect the total revenue collected from a tax of all goods sold in this country to be easily 2x to 3x the collected income tax.
1. People buy a lot of stuff on credit, with money that they haven't earned yet. 2. There are a lot of poor people excluded from income tax, in fact for some single parents, with EIC, they GET money. 3. A lot of the rich hide money in tax shelters, 401K , IRA, trusts, and other mechanisms to avoid taxation. 4. Those who visit here, but don't work, don't pay any tax.
So, I can't imagine that even a 10% national sales tax would not provide plenty of revenue to replace the current funds collected from income tax?
I know there have been studies on this, I'll just have to find them when I have time.
Glen Austin
Edited by gdaustin
June 28, 2003, 11:29:26 PM EDT
|
Post #107,745
6/28/03 11:46:24 PM
|
have to agree with Karsten
in Kanader you have 15% import duties plus 15% vat plus income tax at 30% plus pension taxes. They still run deficits. To replace what the top 5% pay in income taxes means loaves of cheap white bread at $3.00. thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
As the Poets have mournfully sung. Death takes the innocent young, The rolling in money, the screamingly funny, And those who are very well hung. W.H. Auden
|
Post #107,832
6/30/03 2:24:49 AM
|
Actually, we don't
run deficits, that is. We haven't run one in ten years. Not only that, but running deficits is now widely seen as political suicide for the government that does it; we expect our governments to live within their means in return for the high taxes we pay them.
We've managed to retire some 50 billion in outstanding debt (totalling around 450 billion, now) in the last ten years.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #107,753
6/29/03 12:53:54 AM
|
Re: Don't think so...
\r\nFirst of all, the real taxable income percentage greater than 30% only for those who are effectively single, or making a LOT of money.\r\n \r\n\r\n While this may be a small number of people, it's a large portion of the tax base. Which gets us to problem #1 with an expenditures-based revenue base: residents at the low end of the income ladder spend a larger portion of their income on taxable goods. The rich "spend" on trusts, inheritences, investments, business ventures, services, and other nontaxable transactions. \r\n\r\n Consequently, any sales tax based scheme would either be highly regressive, or would have to include significant adjustments to avoid taxing goods used by low-income households, and tax goods used by high-income households. This immediately loses the simplicity and implementation advantages of a sales tax: you are no longer levying a uniform tax across highly uniform products for which collection and enforcement are readily accomplished. \r\n\r\n \r\nSecond, a lot of people who buy things here don't pay income tax. Nowhere near 30%. Even 10% might be tolerable for a time. \r\n\r\nNeed someone to come up with the total value of all goods "sold" in the country. Then total the income tax receipts and divide the total values of all goods sold by the tax receipts to come up with a figure. \r\n\r\nIt's nowhere even close to 30%. I'm in a decent income job, two parent family (one primary income), and 3 kids and our income tax rate is only 20%, once you figure out mortgage interest, charitable giving, kid deductions, etc. I would expect the total income tax collected for all "taxable" income earned in the country to yield an average tax rate of 13-15 percent. \r\n \r\n\r\n The net aggregate tax rate in the US is generally estimated at about 50% of income, once federal and state income, SSI, unemployment, medicare, sales, property, and other tax assessments are combined. You're being nickeled and dimed for a lot of this so it doesn't register up front. Direct income tax is only about 16% of income. However, add to this an existing 7% sales tax (rates vary), 6% state income, and another 5.8% for SSI, and you're up to 34% total tax. This still excludes additional taxes such as gas -- at about $0.50/gallon in CA, 10,000 miles per year, and 22 MPG, that's another 0.5%. Ditto smokes, booze, recycling deposits, etc., etc., etc. \r\n\r\n For some statistics: \r\n\r\n \r\n- Total US BLS "consumer units" (households), 1999: 108.47 million
\r\n\r\n- HH income before taxes (1999): $4.767 trillion
\r\n\r\n- Taxes (implied, 1999): $754.482 billion (the IRS reports total personal income tax receipts in 1998 of $768 billion)
\r\n\r\n- Total US HH expenditures: $4.012 trillion. Note that this includes all sales and excise taxes for all items purchased, which we'll average at 7% (a SWAG), or $280 billion.
\r\n\r\n- Equivalent sales tax rate on untaxed income to result in equivalent tax returns: 15%
\r\n\r\n- Equivalent sales tax rate inclusive of SSI: 23.8%
\r\n\r\n- Equivalent sales tax rate inclusive of an average 7% local sales tax: 30.8%
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n Note that we're still not done with taxes at the 30.8% value -- we're excluding state income and additional excise taxes. But you get the idea. \r\n\r\n \r\nSo, I would expect the total revenue collected from a tax of all goods sold in this country to be easily 2x to 3x the collected income tax.\r\n \r\n\r\n Nope. It's closer to 35% of income tax receipts. \r\n\r\n \r\nSo, I can't imagine that even a 10% national sales tax would not provide plenty of revenue to replace the current funds collected from income tax?\r\n \r\n\r\n Typical. Even understandable. But mistaken. \r\n\r\n Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, [link|http://www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm|Consumer Expenditure Survey], [link|http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann01.pdf|Consumer Expenditures in 2001] (see table, p. 3). [link|http://flattax.house.gov/taxfacts/irsfacts.asp|IRS Tax Return Statistics], [link|http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/18/oped1728.asp|Gasoline Prices Can and Should Be Lower].
--\r\n Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #107,768
6/29/03 10:46:22 AM
|
Not quite that bad.
[link|http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html|http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html]
We haven't doubled spending since 95...and this study shows that replacing income taxes would require about an 11% vat. If you make it progressive by eliminating the tax burden on all spending up to poverty level....the rate hits just over 14.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #107,771
6/29/03 10:58:15 AM
|
Re: Not quite that bad.
Steve Forbes, who actually championed flat tax as a Presidential candidate, had a figure of 17% I think. That for some unknown reason seems like a good number. Everyone could live with the extra 3 percent. Call it a tip. But that's it - lock it in and come up with a consistent plan for borrowing money - financing future productivity - from "the future". You can make long range plans if you know that the tax burden is going to be what it is, regardless. So it would have to go into the Constitution.
-drl
|
Post #107,795
6/29/03 5:18:00 PM
|
Sales tax: current income vs. net
The delta between the 11%, 15%, or 17% numbers, and the 30%-50% I gave, is that the low values are for replacement of the existing federal income tax only. The 30% rate is what you'd arrive at if all current payroll deductions were added to the income tax deduction, and current state and local sales tax -- it would be the effective total sales tax rate. The 50% rate is effectively the total tax burden. \r\n\r\n Calculating that last is tricky, as the taxes are rolled into many different collection mechanisms and jurisdictions. Given that there are single states with over 2,000 tax assessing bodies (Illinois comes to mind), it would be difficult to get a final number. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that the final value is in the 40-50% range. 30% was a value tossed out by Chris Farrel on MPR's "Sound Money" radio show some months back.
--\r\n Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|