Let the tax wars begin

[Stone]

Let the tax wars begin{back to topic}
......................................

I can do that....

But don't expect me to ignore new challenges that go off topic.

 

[The Man]

Sales tax is a regressive form of taxation....by definition of it's application.
You can rant all you want....but it won't change the nature of a fixed rate tax. It's regressive.

You have failed to address how to enforce honest shopping with your proposal of paying a percentage of what you earn while buying that TV set.
Again what is to stop from sending the kid in after the tv set...or having your neighbor buy it.
Do you propose taking in paycheck stubs with you to the retail outlet?
What is to stop one from saying "I have no job"..so no check stubs and getting a zero tax
Nor why someone making 100 million a year should pay 1.5 million dollar tax on a 2 thousand dollar tv set{hardly a fair tax}

 

[The Man]

I can do that....

But don't expect me to ignore new challenges that go off topic.

The same tax wars can happen here that cause off shoring to china etc...where people and business favor the state with the least burden.

Also it seems that states with less tax and smaller govt in general have lower prices...thus reduced wages to match thus being able to be more competitive with china.

Granted it balances out on the local level{local business for local people}{lower wage lower price}...but if it is a company that is shipping products to other areas this can be quite prosperous.

 

[Accountable]

A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly.
The percentage of tax is the same for both buys...Your link also claims a regressive tax is one that isnt {applied uniformly}...but the flat sales tax is

It's political spin, TM. They use the definition of sales tax & apply it to income, even though the tax itself is on the sale, not anyone's income. What if the money spent is a gift? Well, then the impact on income is zero. So does that mean that no tax was paid? The whole thing is stupidity lined up to fool the stupid to gain political leverage. If anyone with the ability to think critically examines the rationale even a little they will see that the reasoning is put together with bubble gum & baling wire.

Sales tax isn't income tax.

 

[The Man]

It's political spin, TM. They use the definition of sales tax & apply it to income, even though the tax itself is on the sale, not anyone's income. What if the money spent is a gift? Well, then the impact on income is zero. So does that mean that no tax was paid? The whole thing is stupidity lined up to fool the stupid to gain political leverage. If anyone with the ability to think critically examines the rationale even a little they will see that the reasoning is put together with bubble gum & baling wire.

Sales tax isn't income tax.

Indeed.
We have progressive.
Flat.
Regressive.
The liberals want to claim flat is regressive.
So what would an actual neutral {flat tax} be..with their logic since flat is regressive then actual flat would have to be on the progressive scale...which is already progressive.:willy_nilly:

 

[Stone]

States with less tax have better economic performance.
States with less tax spend less but also provide the same service{less corruption and are more efficient}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the midst of a dismal recovery where every job counts, one fact stands out: States that tax less achieve better economic performance. Conventional thinking (at least within government) says that low state taxes are dependent upon having access to unusual revenue sources, but that's not it. A state could be awash in oil and gas severance taxes and still have a high tax burden if the government will not exercise restraint.

The secret to having low taxes is controlling spending, and that's exactly what low-tax-burden states do.

States with an income tax spent 42% more per resident in 2011 than the nine states without an income tax. States in the bottom 40 of the Tax Foundation's Business Tax Climate Index (which assesses business, personal, property and other taxes) spent 40% more per resident. In the American Legislative Exchange Council's "Rich States, Poor States" Economic Outlook (based on 15 policy variables), the bottom 40 spent 35% more than the top 10 states
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578099233101373940.html


Sounds like a winner to me {efficiency and less corruption}

Copy and paste arguments are like that.



You noted in your opening post:
excerpt from your link:

But skeptics noted that Kansas now is projected to have a sizable budget hole because of the tax cuts.

Following that argument and Missouri follows suit and experiences the same effect.......what is your answer to addressing the short fall.......... beyond the socialist intervention you proposed in your flat tax/consumption tax thread? Creating new jobs with federal money.
Do you think Missouri could compete in tax reduction with Texas and why, since Texas appears to have created a revenue excess from a boost in it's energy business?

States with lower taxation do attract more business that states with higher rates of taxation.
States with right to work laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
also attract more business, especially in the manufacturing sector, because labor rates are generally lower..


But not all states have the ability to compete with Texas.
Would you recommend States default on public pensions or perhaps entitlements that many see as a right( that's an observation) such as Medicare?
You seem to like Texas for it's position.....and it has some merit.
But there is more to the picture, and it applies to all states not just Texas,......and it involves a dynamic of lowering taxes to attract business versus ( in many states ) unfunded liabilities.

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-fragile-recovery-at-risk-85899444612


BTW....as you can see in the above article, even though Texas has an $8 billion 'rainy day' fund.....it isn't addressing the $4.3 billion short fall in Medicaid.

So.....the economic picture isn't equal among the States nor as peachy as you think....obviously.
Public pension funds, anyone?
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_public_pensions
Ouch!

But they do have the energy industry to fall back on.......how's Missouri in that regard?

The secret to having low taxes is controlling spending, and that's exactly what low-tax-burden states do.

And how do you control this scenario?
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/27/28-trillion-in-unfunded-state-pension-de


Breathe deep:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...-government-employee-retirement-benefit-plans

• Unfunded pension liabilities are approximately $2.5 trillion, compared to the reported amount of $493 billion.
• Unfunded liabilities for health and other benefits are $558 billion, compared to the reported $537 billion.
• Thus, total unfunded liabilities for all benefit plans are an estimated $3.1 trillion — nearly three times higher than the plans report.

Yeah.....copy and paste argument often sound good till you look a little closer.
The question is......how much tax reduction can be accomplished with out going into default?
I don't have an answer....but it's obvious the issue is there.

 

[Stone]

The same tax wars can happen here that cause off shoring to china etc...where people and business favor the state with the least burden.

Also it seems that states with less tax and smaller govt in general have lower prices...thus reduced wages to match thus being able to be more competitive with china.

Granted it balances out on the local level{local business for local people}{lower wage lower price}...but if it is a company that is shipping products to other areas this can be quite prosperous.

Obviously....no argument there. Taxes incorporated into the manufacture of products obviously stifle competition.

My discussion with Accountable, however. involved a regressive consumption tax on the public.
As shown, regressive taxation burdens the low wage earner more than the affluent.
Bragging on no income tax winds up being merely the thoughtlessness imposition on low wage earners.
Nothing to do with the competition of exports in a world market.

 

[Stone]

It's political spin, TM. They use the definition of sales tax & apply it to income, even though the tax itself is on the sale, not anyone's income. What if the money spent is a gift? Well, then the impact on income is zero. So does that mean that no tax was paid? The whole thing is stupidity lined up to fool the stupid to gain political leverage. If anyone with the ability to think critically examines the rationale even a little they will see that the reasoning is put together with bubble gum & baling wire.

Sales tax isn't income tax.

^^^^^More sophistry......sales tax is a means of revenue generation. And it's a regressive tax.

 

[Stone]

You have failed to address how to enforce honest shopping with your proposal of paying a percentage of what you earn while buying that TV set.
Again what is to stop from sending the kid in after the tv set...or having your neighbor buy it.
Do you propose taking in paycheck stubs with you to the retail outlet?
What is to stop one from saying "I have no job"..so no check stubs and getting a zero tax
Nor why someone making 100 million a year should pay 1.5 million dollar tax on a 2 thousand dollar tv set{hardly a fair tax}

whoops....missed this post.

You have failed to address how to enforce honest shopping with your proposal of paying a percentage of what you earn while buying that TV set.

Where do you dream up this shit?

Sales tax is a regressive concept.....period.

Again what is to stop from sending the kid in after the tv set.

Nothing.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of regressive taxation.
Sales tax is a fixed rate to all consumers, rich or poor, no matter who pays it.
That's why it's called regressive.

Do you propose taking in paycheck stubs with you to the retail outlet?

Like I posted earlier......all you are presenting are childish illogical comments that have nothing to with the discussion of regressive taxation.

What is to stop one from saying "I have no job"..so no check stubs and getting a zero tax

Why not ask why the sky is blue......same dumb ass type of question ...irrelevant to the topic of regressive taxation.........

Nor why someone making 100 million a year should pay 1.5 million dollar tax on a 2 thousand dollar tv set{hardly a fair tax}

I see why Tim had such harsh remarks about your participation.


Sales tax is a regressive concept, no matter whether it's instituted by a conservative state legislature or a liberal state legislature......the act of a fixed tax rate is by definition, regressive.
Your illogical childish comments can not change that fact.

 

[Stone]

Let the tax wars begin{back to topic}

I can do that....

But don't expect me to ignore new challenges that go off topic.

You have failed to address how to enforce honest shopping with your proposal of paying a percentage of what you earn while buying that TV set.
Again what is to stop from sending the kid in after the tv set...or having your neighbor buy it.
Do you propose taking in paycheck stubs with you to the retail outlet?
What is to stop one from saying "I have no job"..so no check stubs and getting a zero tax
Nor why someone making 100 million a year should pay 1.5 million dollar tax on a 2 thousand dollar tv set{hardly a fair tax}

Couldn't leave it alone, could you