DNC Convention and "investment"

[GilpinGuy]

...any item you donated would have already been taxed and paid for with already taxed money.

Libs do seem to have a problem understanding the double taxation thing, huh?

[Sharpienads]

What is your idea behind a consumption tax? Why should I be taxed because I purchase something?

You're already taxed everytime you buy something. The Fair Tax only taxes new goods at the point of retail and replaces the income tax. I'm typing on my phone right now so I don't feel like going into a lot of detail. But there are a lot of good aspects to the Fair Tax. I think its a little too complicated the way it is now, but could be simplified.

[Sharpienads]

Libs do seem to have a problem understanding the double taxation thing, huh?

Yeah, they do. My personal favorite though is when they say we can't afford tax breaks for the rich because it contributes to the deficit. There is so much wrong with that way of thinking its not even funny.

[Irving]

You're already taxed everytime you buy something. The Fair Tax only taxes new goods at the point of retail and replaces the income tax. I'm typing on my phone right now so I don't feel like going into a lot of detail. But there are a lot of good aspects to the Fair Tax. I think its a little too complicated the way it is now, but could be simplified.

Of course you're already taxed at purchase, but when I hear people suggest a consumption tax, I'm under the impression that it would be a significantly higher rate than the current sales tax.

[Goodburbon]

I like how they keep going on about the republican desire to "give" the rich people tax breaks.

NO! YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANYTHING, YOU'RE "NOT TAKING".

When politicians manipulate language and descriptions to evoke the response they desire it makes me sick. Both sides do it but the left is considerably more proficient.

Oh, and I was watching Bill Clinton speak at the DNC and every time they panned to the audience they would focus on one person and their reaction to the speech. I would instantly want to punch that person in the face.

[GilpinGuy]

That's "if" we have an income tax. I don't don't like the idea of an income tax, but if that's what we have it should be flat and everybody should pay. I think a consumption tax might be a better way to go.

What is your idea behind a consumption tax? Why should I be taxed because I purchase something?

We need a tax of some sort, right? The gov has to operate and needs funds for the operation. So if we did away with the income tax, a consumption tax is one option.

I'm with Irving here (I think). I just don't know if a consumption tax is the way to go. I've heard folks promote it. I would LOVE it personally. I don't go nuts at the mall every weekend and mosty buy used stuff, so it wouldn't hurt me that bad.

Here's a downside I can think of. Folks just won't buy as much new stuff because of the tax. Of course folks would have more cash on hand because there would be no income tax, so that's unlikely at first. But after a while they would get wise. Maybe not. Folks like their "stuff", that's for sure.

The tax would be rolled into the cost of any new product as well, so unless that cost was listed on every price tag, many folks wouldn't even get that their tax is XX amount. Details....

If anything I think we'll see a consumption tax ON TOP OF the income tax before anything else. This would be promoted as a tax on the wealthy as well.

[Sharpienads]

Of course you're already taxed at purchase, but when I hear people suggest a consumption tax, I'm under the impression that it would be a significantly higher rate than the current sales tax.

Yeah it would be higher. But there are pros and cons.

[GilpinGuy]

I like how they keep going on about the republican desire to "give" the rich people tax breaks.

NO! YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANYTHING, YOU'RE "NOT TAKING".

Haha! I've heard Rosen quote George Will (I think) in saying, "If I'm blowing cigar smoke in your face, then I stop blowing cigar smoke in your face, I'm not giving you clean air."

You earn $100 they take $20. Then you earn $100 and they only take $15. They didn't GIVE you $5. They allowed you to keep $5 more of what YOU earned. How nice.

[Irving]

I recently heard someone talking about being in favor of a consumption tax because it would be a way to stick it to the rich, and it rubbed me the wrong way. Now I am re-evaluating how I feel about a consumption tax.

What it boils down to, is that I think that people's money should only be taxed ONCE, period. The government tries to make sure that they get a cut of every financial transaction that takes place, and I don't agree with that concept. To accept that way of thinking, is to accept that those taxes are your payment for existing in society. The government does not allow me to live and engage in commerce, I allow the government an allowance in order to operate.

A good example of the government taking a slice of financial transactions is how the US government outlawed online gambling unless the companies paid taxes to the US government. This conversation reminds me that I need to research bitcoins some more. A lot of people are afraid of the concept of a global currency, but what about a global currency that no government has control over?

[Rucker61]

I haven't heard Rucker comment on a flat tax yet. I like it. Everyone has some skin in the game then. No free ride at all, ever.

Some quick research on various flat tax proposals indicates that "most serious" flat tax schemes require a "zero-bracket", ie, a level of income that isn't taxed. I don't think it's difficult to see that $1k of tax from a $10k family hurts more than $10k from a $100k family. The basic idea is that a certain level of income is exempt from the tax, say $20k, and everyone gets that same $20k deduction from their income. Something like this is more socially acceptable (read: acceptable by the left) and the flat tax rate should be lower to the wealthy than what they're paying. The hard part would be keeping those with the means of creating exceptions in their favor. We'd have to kill all the lawyers first.