/biz/ - Business & Finance

You'd still have people complaining that the poor are the hardest hit.

But yeah, I agree.

>>14944
It would at least be fair, right?

Economists have been pushing consumption taxes (basically sales taxes) for decades now, its much more economically efficient. Look up the VAT (value-added tax). Unfortunately its not politically feasible. Income taxes allow politicians to stick in a whole bunch of credits, deductions, and tax evasion loopholes to please voters and donors, you can't do that with consumption taxes.

>>14948
In theory, yes.

sales tax should definitely replace income tax.

captcha: every obabotec

no taxes on essentials, higher taxes on everything else

>>14909

I wish they'd do this just so filing taxes wasn't such a chore. And by that I mean I wouldn't have to bother with W-2s and 1099s for everything.

But again I don't see them ever doing this in the short term.

>>14968
I think you'd end up with disproportionately expensive luxuries, which means no one can afford luxury good like consumer electronics, which is bad for the economy

encourages saving as well, seems like a great idea but I think this anon hit the nail on the head >>14959

good economic policy is often not the same as politically popular economic policy, and politicians will always choose the later

>>14909
I'm not that worried about illegal aliens dodging their tiny share of the taxes, at most they make up 12 million people who are almost always low wage earners. Their effect on healthcare and in some cases education is much more important than the taxes they are dodging directly.

I don't think that relying ONLY on sales tax is a good idea either, our economy is built on consumption.

>>15027
You really think if you slapped a 12% tax on those items they'd stop being bought?

>which is bad for the economy
Please don't talk to me like I'm 10.

>>15087
They'd have to put pretty flocking high taxes on luxuries to make up for the fact that there are literally no taxes on essentials

>>15074
>our economy is built on consumption.

lately, I've been questioning the wisdom of that, I think encouraging savings might be a good hedge against recession. It'll result in a more focused economy where only the best goods and services rise to the top. Consider in the 60s, spending was alot more controlled and the average person was alot more wealthy.

Our current consumption blitz has left us in debt and broke. Sure it worked in the war years, but it worked only when coupled with a high level of individual saving and austerity.

>>15050
Fun fact: Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama all set up commissions of economists to make tax reform suggestions.

All 3 times, the economists recommended a consumption tax, and all 3 times they were completely ignored.

>>15087
>Please don't talk to me like I'm 10.
Son, I'll talk to you how I please

>>15133
By debt, do you mean the trade deficit, household debt or national debt?

why not have no tax? Ever thought about that?

Because people would hoard money as not to pay tax and the economy would stagnate.

>>14909
One of the primary complaints is on the disposable income portion. Doing that would change how the tax effects poor and rich, the necessities are a larger portion of the poor's spending. Would you keep certain things non taxable, like food stuffs?

>>15211
Enjoy not having roads.

>>15133

http://m.nationalreview.com/exchequer/247825/70-percent-myth-consumer-economy

This is the supply side economics argument - that, according to Say's law, production of goods creates the demand for said goods.

>>15237
There are plenty of countries (mostly in Europe) that have instituted a consumption tax, and none of them saw a significant drop in consumption after the tax was instituted.

>>15235
MUH ROADS

yes, because roads were never built before the government

In Texas, we've got a 8% tax on sales, and that's, for the most part, all the taxes the state collects. We're able to run the entire state government AND pay the federal government more than we get back on that 8%

>>15050

Saving is not good for the economy. Why would governments encourage saving?

Sales tax is a regressive tax that harms the poor and to an extent the middle class but completely benefits the rich. It should be eliminated, or lowered to a much smaller amount.

>>15280
A regressive tax can be balanced out with progressive government spending.

>>14959
>you can't do that with consumption taxes
Why not? It's perfectly normal to have different rates of VAT depending on the product.

Say you had a general VAT of 20%, and a political party proposes to reduce the VAT on agricultural products to 10%. This would reduce the price the end consumer has to pay for these products, which increases demand, and increased demand means more profit for the agricultural industry, giving them strong incentive to vote for the party that proposed this policy.

>>15235

>>15274
It's 6.25% plus up to 2% that local jurisdictions can add. Groceries and drugs are not subject to the tax either.

>>15261
The Via Appia sure as fuck wasn't built by private philanthropists.

>>15133
Yes, median families were wealthier in the 60s but that had alot less to do with savings than the 70's recession which led to the great union backlash and the inane policy of service economies. The result being stagnant wages and less spending AND saving.

start major expansion of roads, eliminate sales tax for cars, tax fuel saving cars, eliminate biofuel subsidies, and heavily tax petrol.

US debt eliminated.

>>15287
If that happens it completely destroys the point of the VAT. The sole benefit of a VAT is that its less economically wasteful, if you start doing stuff like that it defeats the point.

>>15211
No Tax!
But every Road is a toll road, every school is a private school, every policeman is a highest-bidder mercenary.....

>>15329
:DDDDD

>>15274
Feels good to be a gangster.

Because it's impossible to transition to it. People have savings that have already been taxed.

Also, if you do this you make tourism a lot more expensive, and really fuck places like vegas and new York over.

>>15324
The US debt isn't a problem, the t-bills that we sell for the trade deficit have negative real interest rates. Even if you want to conflate microeconomics and macroeconomics the US's assets easily dwarf the debt.

income tax is bad but not for any of the reasons stated in this thread
its because it means the government automatically is involved in how you make money
the consequences of this should be obvious

>>15274

Property taxes in Texas are higher than other states. But, like you said, no state income tax.

>>15280
>harms the poor and to an extent the middle class but completely benefits the rich
>lower the tax for basic products
>increase it for luxury

>>15210
household in this context, I don't think sales tax is as directly relevant to national debt

>>15431
I hope you don't think property tax and income tax are the same thing...

>>19430

No, the previous person implied that Texas got all of its tax revenue from sales tax. Which is false. There are also significant property taxes. Still, no income tax.

anyone a cpa/ tax accountant? Taking upper level tax accounting. Shit is fucking DETAILED. SO MUCH READING

is it worth dedicating your career to tax if you want to have your own business?

If I open a company, I'll make a C corp so i can shift income accordingly :3 thank you chapter 3 :)

>tfw first exam coming up and want to impress my old awesome teacher

>>15144
[citation needed]

>>14909
move to florida

>>15485

Then people will bitch about how much gorillionaires have to pay extra on their tenth yacht, and yell about redistribution something something. Politicians can't win.

This is an interesting idea and because I try to never buy anything that's not necessary, it would be great. For me.

>>15119
State of New Hampshire gets by pretty well on this system. They have no income or sales tax, just liquor, cigs, and property

>>14909
I don't pay sales tax, so that sounds faaaantastic.

It will hurt the poor to the semi rich and reduce taxes on the super rich unless you change how capital gains are taxed.

>>19470

In a masters of accounting program. have a test on wednesday that's gonna be rough. it's on foreign tax credits.

>>15074
>our economy is built on consumption

Yeah, and we should move away from it just a tiny bit. People don't save enough and are in too much credit card debt.

If this drives more business to the black market I'm all for it.

>>15274
Feels good to be Texas master race.

>>15274

Neither does Washington state. Yet they somehow manage to be more solvent than California while still offering excellent services.

>>14909
>Why don't we get rid of income tax and just increase the sales tax?
Because we couldn't have the Federal Reserve system.
>>14948
Yes, in the real sense of the word fair, but not what people want when they say fair.

>>19430
>>21219
I find a property tax almost as repulsive as an income tax. It's just below the estate tax on the fucking you in the ass scale.

I do not like the way that means you're basically a renter and don't actually own your own property..

>>14909
Because it's actually a bad idea. It would hurt everyone who isn't rich as hell, and at the plausible extreme it could annihilate the spending power of half of the US population, taking the whole economy down with it. Convenience in taxation is literally the only benefit, assuming that sales tax was the only tax left in place; income taxes and sales taxes are not the only taxes individual people, even non-property-owners, pay.

Also, people who complain about illegal immigrants not paying taxes are already retards because they do pay taxes (that aren't sales taxes) if they work for an employer that doesn't pay in cash.

>>23804
well, if it weren't for the government that you pay your taxes to, your claim to that property you own would mean literally nothing unless you could afford an army to protect it

>>23819
Actually it would do the opposite. It will help control government spending and get rid of another useless department (IRS). Of course, that's the real reason why it will never happen.

>Also, people who complain about illegal immigrants not paying taxes are already retards because they do pay taxes (that aren't sales taxes) if they work for an employer that doesn't pay in cash.
>if they work for an employer that doesn't pay in cash.
Good luck finding one that isn't paid in cash.
Those fuckers are so annoying. You'll be behind them in line and they'll try to break a $100 bill on a pack of chewing gum.

>>23835
>unless you could afford an army to protect it
Funny you should say that because that's what happened when the Roman Empire fell. All the rich people who before would pay for public works projects out of their own pocket were being taxed so high it became cheaper for them to hire an army and stay at their private villas. This creates the feudalism.

I feel we are going down a similar path now.

>>15261
well they weren't. government coupled with organized agriculture gave rise to civilization, and with civilization came roads

>>23839
you do know that said $100 might have also come from a bank, Walmart, or any other place you cash a check, right? Are you really so retarded as to believe that just because a hispanic person pays with a $100 bill automatically means that they get paid for their work in cash?

>>23839
>control government spending
government spending is fine (in terms of total amount, not necessarily the details of how it's being spent); government needs more revenue, and to do that it needs a functioning economy, and to do that it needs to put money into the hands of consumers who will actually spend the money they are given instead of just hoarding most of it, and to do that the government needs to spend money (also, in modern times, having the most powerful military to have ever existed doesn't come cheap)

>>14948

Depends on the definition of fair, and there are some really, really stretched definitions of "fair"

>>23869
We basically do have capitalistic feudalism.
Certain conglomerates who have a trade advantage in a particular area due to history and differential tax rates and operating costs have carved up this country into sectors of their economic domain, driving out smaller businesses and holding regional e conomies hostage to their whims

>>23949
>government needs more revenue
No, it needs to spend less. If you're in credit card debt do you go out and max out another credit card?

>and to do that it needs to put money into the hands of consumers who will actually spend the money they are given instead of just hoarding most of it
Because having money left over for retirement or in case you have an accident, loose your job, etc. is such a horrible thing to do, right?

Next you're going to tell me that you can create wealth by paying someone to bury trash and then pay someone else to dig it back up.

>>23993
Don't bother even talking to fucking socialists.

They can't even fucking read government budgetary charts, and most of them don't realize the average spending on entitlements and social welfare programs in developed nations is already 50%.

>but-but if we just gave poor people even MORE money...
I wish i could kill all the people who said this

>>15431
If you want to see high property taxes, come to Wisconsin! I bullshit you not, you'll pay ~30% of what your mortgage payment is, on property tax. About 2.3% of principal. This is on top of a 4.6% state income tax, and 5.5% sales tax. Now I'm looking in Houston, property tax seems to be in the 1% range. That's dirt cheap.

>>24059
naw cunt you're entitled and privileged. Pay an extra 2% of the value per year and let it double the cost of the loan so nigs can get a few more bucks per month in food stamps.

>>15027
So, australia?

>>23993
>microeconomics works exactly like macroeconomics

That's where you're wrong.

Also, in this example inflation is higher than the interest rate so you're better off putting things on credit.

I was going to post fb/ being classical liberal's nonsense about how consumption tax reform could address low income individuals, but forget it.

If you wanted to have consumption tax AND cronyism it's easy - just give certain groups of individuals access to tax refunds. Yes, income tax is easier, but why can't the tax code accommodate consumption tax? I find that hard to believe.

Since no tax policy is going to be free from corruption and cronyism, what exactly is being advocated, OP? Why not get rid of all taxes?

>>27721
Inflation is higher than the interest rate

Well, those lenders sure are stupid. Now it's a matter of outrunning them before they learn better.

>>14948

Any kind of taxation that is not voluntary agreed upon is theft.

>>27735
Has nothing to do with being smart or stupid, they need a reliable place to put their money, instead of shoving it under their mattress. It's better that they buy T-Bill's instead of stocks or something similar.