What do you think of a national retail sales tax? - Page 2

DuncanK · February 25, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay
I find sales taxes annoying enough when I go to other states. No way in hell I'd want to have to put up with one on a daily basis.

That must be very annoying. Having to pay more. The tag says the price is $2 and then they make you pay more. I think we get used to it here, but it's still bullshit.

DuncanK · February 25, 2003, 15:02

I'm for a single wealth tax only

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 15:46

Oh, great idea. Increase the tax on the people who can least afford to pay it, and reduce it on those who can most afford it. Brilliant.

St Leo · February 25, 2003, 16:11

a lower price tag is psychologically better, even if you are just taking money elsewhere...

In Canada, the GST (and Ontario's PST) is added on top of the price tag because it doesn't apply to items under $4.00 and certain other things(?).

Actually, you people are making a good case for raising the corporate and income taxes and dropping the GST. That would probably be fairer.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

This is a plan by Conservatives to shift the tax base so that the rich and corporations pay even less taxes.

Sava, I think you are correct. The only exception that I'll make is that corporations do not pay income tax of themselves. They merely pass it on in the form of higher prices.

I would suggest eliminating all taxes except corporate income taxes and import taxes. This way individual income would be individual income and prices would be prices

Sava · February 25, 2003, 16:50

When I'm dictator, I'm going to have primarily wealth, corporate, and capital gains taxes. I'll also have smaller progressive income taxes and some sort of small sales tax on specific goods. For instance, I'd tax marijuana and other drugs in order to pay for free public health programs that deal with addiction. I'd use sales taxes just for the purpose of manipulating supply and demand. Even though it might seem like a lot of tax, people won't have to worry about education, health care, and possibly some subsidized housing costs. There will be more disposable income for the lower and middle classes so they can spend and fuel the economy. IMO, the rich are more of a drain on the economy then they are help to it... they should carry more of the tax burden. It's all about finding a good balance between a good network of social programs and economic freedom.

DuncanK · February 25, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Actually, you people are making a good case for raising the corporate and income taxes and dropping the GST. That would probably be fairer.

corporate taxes are really like sales tax, because the cost is passed on to the consumer.

mactbone · February 25, 2003, 19:43

So the rich never start businessess, buy expensive items (i.e. boats, houses), and invest their money in the economy?

What a burden on society...

Buck Birdseed · February 25, 2003, 20:21

Sure they do. Doesn't mean they're not money-grabbing, evil expoitative bastards with an unfair share of societal waelth though.

mactbone · February 25, 2003, 20:43

Wouldn't that be a pretty big generalization? Care to rephrase that? Care to tell me why people who work hard and/or have good ideas don't deserve to bear the fruit of their labors?

Not that I disagree that there are plenty of rich people that do squat and wring money from everyone - but I know that's only a certain group.

DuncanK · February 25, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
Wouldn't that be a pretty big generalization? Care to rephrase that? Care to tell me why people who work hard and/or have good ideas don't deserve to bear the fruit of their labors?

Not that I disagree that there are plenty of rich people that do squat and wring money from everyone - but I know that's only a certain group.

I doubt if Buck is arguing that people who work hard shouldn't be able to keep the fruits of their labor, just that some people get an unfair share.

monolith94 · February 25, 2003, 21:15

I think we should have a 100% tax on golf clubs, mansions and yachts.

mactbone · February 25, 2003, 21:28

How would Tiger have learned the game then?

monolith94 · February 25, 2003, 21:37

[senator thurmond mode]
he could have stolen it. he's black, isn't he?
[/senator thurmond mode]

Zkribbler · February 25, 2003, 22:17

Sorry, there's no way to deactivate the Strom Thurmond mode once it's activated.

And no, Tiger's a blend. IIRC: African-American, Asian-American, Native-American and some other stuff. Kind of a United-Nations-type of guy.

Ramo · February 25, 2003, 22:25

Sales taxes, as all regressive taxes, are authoritarian and oppressive in the extreme, thus never justified.

Berzerker · February 25, 2003, 22:53

"Progressive" taxes aren't?

Sava · February 25, 2003, 22:55

Yeah, rich people are so oppressed... it's criminal!

Ramo · February 25, 2003, 22:56

They're significantly less oppressive than regressive taxes, thus can be justified.

DuncanK · February 25, 2003, 23:00

I only made 5 million last year becuase of the systematic opression of rich people. I may have to get a job if this keeps up. Oh my, what will become of me?

monolith94 · February 25, 2003, 23:05

"And no, Tiger's a blend."
That's part of the point - bigots don't even care to rationalize about that type of thing: they just see that he has black skin, and assume what they wish.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 23:05

I had to buy a 20 million dollar estate instead of the 25 million dollar one I wanted... DAMN LIBERALS AND THEIR CONSPIRACIES!!!

Berzerker · February 25, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

They're significantly less oppressive than regressive taxes, thus can be justified.

So some oppression is justified, thx for clearing that up.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 23:35

that's right... it's so wrong to oppress rich people!! they are so unfairly treated!

Berzerker · February 25, 2003, 23:38

Apparently certain kinds of oppression are okay as long as those doing the oppressing - liberals - get to decide who the victims are, how convenient.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 23:40

that's right its all the liberals fault... they want to oppress rich people, they are so evil... right on BERSEKER!

Berzerker · February 25, 2003, 23:42

It sure isn't us libertarians using government to steal from others.

Ramo · February 25, 2003, 23:46

Quote:

So some oppression is justified, thx for clearing that up.

That's right (by oppression, I mean force, so I might not be saying what you think I am). I believe the goal of society should be to minimize authority. So, authoritarian acts can be justified when they reduce net authority. This is why certain prison and police systems can be justified, for instance.

Berzerker · February 26, 2003, 00:00

Ramo -

Quote:

That's right (by oppression, I mean force, so I might not be saying what you think I am).

Am I "oppressing" a would-be murderer if I defend myself? If not, then it's not "force" that is oppressive, but the initiation of force, true?

Quote:

I believe the goal of society should be to minimize authority.

Authority is not the problem, mis-placed authority is the problem. We all have the authority to defend ourselves from attack, therefore government, on our behalf, has that authority.
You've switched from force/oppression to authority, aren't they essentially the same thing?

Quote:

So, authoritarian acts can be justified when they reduce net authority. This is why certain prison and police systems can be justified, for instance.

And how does the use of force to compel a rich or poor person to hand over their money - taxes, progressive or not - reduce this "net authority" if that person is using no force (authority) against others?

Urban Ranger · February 26, 2003, 00:10

So how will you deal with the issue of the rich oppressing the poor, Berzerker?