toldailytopic: Flat tax? Sales tax? Which might be a better option than the tradition

[chrysostom]

The only biblical example is a flat tax on actual increase in wealth, ie. income minus business expense. A sales tax has no biblical basis, plus it forces business owners to actually work for the government as tax collectors, makes them responsible for carrying out the govt's responsibility in that area and doesn't even pay them for their labor in doing so.

there is a biblical basis for slavery
so
slavery is ok
and
sales tax not?

 

[chrysostom]

Why?

to protect resources that are limited

 

[chrysostom]

"No exceptions. No one is exempt."

Except for the millions of Americans who would be exempt.

Uhm... what?

no bible basis for that

 

[bybee]

As I said

As I said

"No exceptions. No one is exempt."

Except for the millions of Americans who would be exempt.

Uhm... what?

I know very little about the consequences of a flat tax. I'm not following your "except for millions of Americans who would be exempt"? Poor people? Illegal aliens? Criminals? Enlighten me. bybee

 

[Town Heretic]

Why?

I'd guess the argument is you're deriving greater benefit from the system (in addition to Chrysostom's posit). It's just a hidden graduated tax, except you get to decide the amount you pay in by virtue of the choices you make. Only thinking aloud, I'm still knee deep in mulling and haven't come down solidly on any plan yet.

 

[chrysostom]

I'd guess the argument is you're deriving greater benefit from the system (in addition to Chrysostom's posit). It's just a hidden graduated tax, except you get to decide the amount you pay in by virtue of the choices you make. Only thinking aloud, I'm still knee deep in mulling and haven't come down solidly on any plan yet.

come on down!

 

[The Graphite]

there is a biblical basis for slavery
so
slavery is ok
and
sales tax not?

I know you're not this stupid. You know full well that biblical "slavery" is indentured servitude. Not kidnapping people and beating them until they give you things you have no right to take from them.

Or do you think God actually advocates the kind of slavery we had in this country 150 years ago? I know you don't. So don't make such ridiculous equivocation. You've gotta be kidding me.

no bible basis for that

No biblical basis for people giving based on their "increase?"

Again, you've got to be kidding me. It's the only biblical basis we have. Scripture is rife with examples of giving of your increase.

What it does not have... is exceptions for people who make less than other people. How much less? Such an idea is totally morally relative. The Lord is wise; He knows that wealth is very relative, and what passes for poor today is beyond the imagining of what most wealthy people had 3,500 years ago.

You can't deny the biblical example of giving from one's increase. What scripture do you have to show that people below a certain threshold should be exempted? I'd love to see that.

I know very little about the consequences of a flat tax. I'm not following your "except for millions of Americans who would be exempt"? Poor people? Illegal aliens? Criminals? Enlighten me. bybee

The nation's citizens would be taxed. Criminals should 1) pay restitution to their victims, 2) be flogged, and/or 3) be executed, each as appropriate. Illegal aliens are criminals and, after being punished, should be kicked out.

The poor are only poor relative to some subjective standard. America's poor are the envy of much of the world; that is no secret.

You would actually deprive a "poor" person of the privilege of paying taxes. The truth is, paying taxes is a privilege and an obligation, at the same time. When someone is a net receiver, they tend to feel no responsibility to be self-sufficient, and they also have no vested interest in their community and nation.

As a taxpayer and a net giver, I am literally invested in my community and nation. Therefore, I care a lot more about it than someone who just lives to take and take, which is exactly what your exempted "poor" people would be. Exempting them would be more of a curse on them than a blessing. An appropriate tax would be no higher than 10%, as scripture alludes to the fact that a 10% tax can be considered a burden. If a "poor person" makes $100 and they pay a tax of $10, then still have the $90. As things stand right now, they would pay their Social Security and Fica, and they would also pay sales tax almost everywhere they go, the total of which for most people would approach 10% of their income.

Right now, the poorest homeless person pays taxes every time they buy the smallest thing. They are not exempted. You would be putting them into an exempt category that they aren't even in, currently.

It is sad that our corrupt government has spent so much money on things that everyone (deep down) knows are immoral, and this has taught everyone to actually resent paying taxes. I absolutely resent paying taxes every year. Why? Because a very large portion of my taxes goes to support murder, perversion and socialist programs that take money from people who earned it (including me) and giving it to people who didn't earn it.

We should not resent paying taxes. Under a godly and biblical system, we would all be paying for things that benefit us -- infrastructure, administration of public resources, criminal justice and national defense. What is there to resent in that? I am able to "increase" because there are roads and street lights, and I have access to water because of administration of water rights, I can hear my pastor preaching on the radio because of administration of broadcast airwaves, and I have to worry a lot less about crime because criminals are punished swiftly and harshly, and my nation is reasonably protected from foreign threats.

Because of all of those things, I can increase. Therefore, I give 10% of my increase to cover the costs of all of those things which allowed me to increase. And I would have gratitude in that tax payment. Not resentment and spite and derision and depression and despair. I would give that tax payment with a thankful and joyful heart. And that is how it should be.

I would never desire to deprive a "poor" person of that blessing. After all, if he makes $100 and the tax is $10, if he can't live on that, then he should work harder and/or more, so that he can earn $111, and then the tax is $11, and then he ends up with $100.

(And obviously, the $100 figure is a made-up figure to represent whatever one's income may be. Don't jab at me with ridiculous assertions that I think someone can live on $100 a year. It's an X factor.)

 

[bybee]

Thankyou

Thankyou

I know you're not this stupid. You know full well that biblical "slavery" is indentured servitude. Not kidnapping people and beating them until they give you things you have no right to take from them.

Or do you think God actually advocates the kind of slavery we had in this country 150 years ago? I know you don't. So don't make such ridiculous equivocation. You've gotta be kidding me.


No biblical basis for people giving based on their "increase?"

Again, you've got to be kidding me. It's the only biblical basis we have. Scripture is rife with examples of giving of your increase.

What it does not have... is exceptions for people who make less than other people. How much less? Such an idea is totally morally relative. The Lord is wise; He knows that wealth is very relative, and what passes for poor today is beyond the imagining of what most wealthy people had 3,500 years ago.

You can't deny the biblical example of giving from one's increase. What scripture do you have to show that people below a certain threshold should be exempted? I'd love to see that.


The nation's citizens would be taxed. Criminals should 1) pay restitution to their victims, 2) be flogged, and/or 3) be executed, each as appropriate. Illegal aliens are criminals and, after being punished, should be kicked out.

The poor are only poor relative to some subjective standard. America's poor are the envy of much of the world; that is no secret.

You would actually deprive a "poor" person of the privilege of paying taxes. The truth is, paying taxes is a privilege and an obligation, at the same time. When someone is a net receiver, they tend to feel no responsibility to be self-sufficient, and they also have no vested interest in their community and nation.

As a taxpayer and a net giver, I am literally invested in my community and nation. Therefore, I care a lot more about it than someone who just lives to take and take, which is exactly what your exempted "poor" people would be. Exempting them would be more of a curse on them than a blessing. An appropriate tax would be no higher than 10%, as scripture alludes to the fact that a 10% tax can be considered a burden. If a "poor person" makes $100 and they pay a tax of $10, then still have the $90. As things stand right now, they would pay their Social Security and Fica, and they would also pay sales tax almost everywhere they go, the total of which for most people would approach 10% of their income.

Right now, the poorest homeless person pays taxes every time they buy the smallest thing. They are not exempted. You would be putting them into an exempt category that they aren't even in, currently.

It is sad that our corrupt government has spent so much money on things that everyone (deep down) knows are immoral, and this has taught everyone to actually resent paying taxes. I absolutely resent paying taxes every year. Why? Because a very large portion of my taxes goes to support murder, perversion and socialist programs that take money from people who earned it (including me) and giving it to people who didn't earn it.

We should not resent paying taxes. Under a godly and biblical system, we would all be paying for things that benefit us -- infrastructure, administration of public resources, criminal justice and national defense. What is there to resent in that? I am able to "increase" because there are roads and street lights, and I have access to water because of administration of water rights, I can hear my pastor preaching on the radio because of administration of broadcast airwaves, and I have to worry a lot less about crime because criminals are punished swiftly and harshly, and my nation is reasonably protected from foreign threats.

Because of all of those things, I can increase. Therefore, I give 10% of my increase to cover the costs of all of those things which allowed me to increase. And I would have gratitude in that tax payment. Not resentment and spite and derision and depression and despair. I would give that tax payment with a thankful and joyful heart. And that is how it should be.

I would never desire to deprive a "poor" person of that blessing. After all, if he makes $100 and the tax is $10, if he can't live on that, then he should work harder and/or more, so that he can earn $111, and then the tax is $11, and then he ends up with $100.

(And obviously, the $100 figure is a made-up figure to represent whatever one's income may be. Don't jab at me with ridiculous assertions that I think someone can live on $100 a year. It's an X factor.)

Thankyou for your thoughtful response. This subject has many ramifications. I did not say to "exempt" anyone. I said I suppose some type of "accommodation" might have to be made for some people. I'd agree that the widow's mite is as valuable as the rich man's tithe. peace, bybee

 

[Ktoyou]

It all depends on ones situation.

If you earn a high income, then flat tax.

If you buy many goods, then you would not want high sales tax.

If you have all you need and spend little, then sales tax is best.

If you earn a low income, the graduated tax would be best.

If you own outright a high market value home, then property tax is the wost.

It all depends on each individual.

Some people do not mind some taxes because the taxes help provide services. Some do not mind because it helps war efforts. Some don't mind if it went to pay the debit. Some just do not want to pay any taxes, no matter what it pays. Unfortunately, many people put their own self-interest ahead of other concerns. Some would like to help, but they believe the government is too corrupt to trust with taxes.

 

[kmoney]

Would it be a flat $$ or a flat %%?

 

[This Charming Manc]

Because the over consumption over America causes massive problems for America and the rest of the world.

These are wide ranging and go from health, to economics, to energy policy and foreign policy.

Also gluttony is a sin

Why?

 

[This Charming Manc]

You seem to work on the assumption the only reason people are poor because they don't work hard, and all it requires is hard work to get a decent standard of living.

I would never desire to deprive a "poor" person of that blessing. After all, if he makes $100 and the tax is $10, if he can't live on that, then he should work harder and/or more, so that he can earn $111, and then the tax is $11, and then he ends up with $100.

(And obviously, the $100 figure is a made-up figure to represent whatever one's income may be. Don't jab at me with ridiculous assertions that I think someone can live on $100 a year. It's an X factor.)

 

[WizardofOz]

I like the idea of a flat tax. For one thing, it would simplify the tax code, which would be a very good thing.

People wouldn't be worried about moving into the next "tax bracket", where an increase in income could actually lose you money.

I would certainly like to know more about it and its practicality. I am basically in agreement with TH here.

I like a bit of what I read in flat tax proposals, though there are assertions relating to the impact on costs that seem more hopeful than rooted in an understanding of how the market actually functions. I'm still mulling this one. The rich won't like it and that means there will doubtless be a wonderfully run grass roots campaign against it shortly.

There would certainly be a backlash if any serious flat tax legislation were put forward. It would kill the tax filing business because of its implied simplicity and those "in the know" about tax tricks in regard to deductions, etc would certainly oppose it.

But, from what I know about it, I like. :thumb:

 

[Ktoyou]

You seem to work on the assumption the only reason people are poor because they don't work hard, and all it requires is hard work to get a decent standard of living.

Not true at all today. Most of the well paying 'hard working' jobs are becoming hard to find.

What is takes to make a high salary is a stable home life where one is a child and the ability to succeed in school. If one is an engineer (Grade 16), an accountant business manager (same Grade level), a Lawyer (Grade 19), a medical doctor (Grade 20) or someone with a science graduate degree (Grade 17-18), in Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Physics, Computer Science, Geology, Pharmacology and other hard sciences, one has a good chance to earn a high income.

One with just an HS degree is not going to earn much without training is such fields as nursing, medical transcription, or a para legal background, will not make a good living by 'hard work' alone.

 

[Lighthouse]

A flat percent on income and nothing else. No sales tax, no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc.

 

[Clark Frugal]

10% on all increases, nothing else. And our elected leaders must be paid only from that! All government functions including their pay must come from the 10% they receive.

What would be the best way for the State and Federal government to SHARE that 10%?

 

[chrysostom]

I know you're not this stupid. You know full well that biblical "slavery" is indentured servitude. Not kidnapping people and beating them until they give you things you have no right to take from them.

Or do you think God actually advocates the kind of slavery we had in this country 150 years ago? I know you don't. So don't make such ridiculous equivocation. You've gotta be kidding me.


No biblical basis for people giving based on their "increase?"

Again, you've got to be kidding me. It's the only biblical basis we have. Scripture is rife with examples of giving of your increase.

where does it say in the Bible that you need a Bible basis for everything that you do?

 

[Ecumenicist]

Graduated tax, with a 50% max, until the debt is paid off. Then lower
the cap. No deductions for anyone, not for children, not for healthcare, not for anything. Especially eliminate the mortgage deduction. Rewarding people for going into debt is wrong.

Same with business, revenue minus expenses equals income, tax it all, without any incentives subsidies or deductions.

Our economy is consumption based, a consumption tax would kill it, and it wouldn't be fair to people who can't afford to feed and house their families.

 

[chrysostom]

Graduated tax, with a 50% max, until the debt is paid off. Then lower
the cap. No deductions for anyone, not for children, not for healthcare, not for anything. Especially eliminate the mortgage deduction. Rewarding people for going into debt is wrong.

Same with business, revenue minus expenses equals income, tax it all, without any incentives subsidies or deductions.

Our economy is consumption based, a consumption tax would kill it, and it wouldn't be fair to people who can't afford to feed and house their families.

there you have it folks
liberals hate children
they even kill them before they are born

 

[Ecumenicist]

there you have it folks
liberals hate children
they even kill them before they are born

:doh: Yeah right. And we want death panels too. Brilliant.

You mean to say Catholics hate contraception, they want to
bury us alive in Catholic babies and have the taxpayers pay for
them. Its all a devious Papal plot, I tell you!

"every .... is sacred, every .... is great. If a .... is wasted, God
gets quite irate!"