consumption tax...

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
a friend of mine over the weekend was telling me that he favors a consumption tax over an income tax....

i don't have any opinions on this yet, but was wondering if anybody else liked the idea or not...
 

layinwood

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2001
4,771
40
0
Dallas, TX
Makes the most sense to me but it's too easy and too many feds would be out of jobs so it can't happen.

I like it because it gets all of the illegal money taxed.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
thanks guys...i haven't really been paying close attention to the presidential race...are any of the candidates in favor of this ?
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Only one I can think of that has ever supported something like this is Steve Forbes, but maybe someone else has, too??

rf...

you may be right but the only thing that i remember forbes voicing his support for was the flat tax....don't remember him saying anything about a consumption tax..
 

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,282
429
83
61
Somewhere in Corn Country
rf...

you may be right but the only thing that i remember forbes voicing his support for was the flat tax....don't remember him saying anything about a consumption tax..

Ah, yes, AR. It was a flat tax that Forbes was advocating. I'm sure there is a difference between the two, but I have no idea what that difference is..:shrug:
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
Even thou I like the idea and would support it... I would not vote for anyone based on this issue or ANY other single issue. It will take more than the president to change the tax system, abortion, education,war in iraq,immigration, & health care.. I have voted for presidents that I don't agree with point by point. I look at the big picture, who I think can lead the Country in a direction that gives Americans the chance to live their American dream. I'm looking for a leader of the free world, some one that will give hope to all that embrace freedom and peace not only in this country but around the world . I vote for a president that will keep it close to the truth. I think Iowa has us on the right path. The first nail is in the coffin of hillary, rudy and mitt. Good start but a long fight on our hands to take our government back from the people that feel they know whats good for us. The people that give away Americas wealth to the enemies of the American People, foreign and domestic. Whether it's a republican or a democrat we need to get a president as close to an outsider as we can. We need to demolish the core of the two most anti American forces that Our Country has ever seen. The reb & dem parties ! I could live with and support Huckabee or Obama, long way to go. Their not going to give it up, We have to take it back. Great sign with the numbers that showed up. They don't want us to vote. Hillary and Mitt and their backers worst fear came true last night. New voters. They don't want no stinking new voters. I voted for Reagan twice, thought he was the right guy at the right time given the choice. Have to say he has been the best since 80. Then it was Bush 41, Perot, Bush 43, can't remember the guys name, just basically couldn't vote for Bush or Gore.... I think Obama could change the way we do business, shake things up, change the way the world looks at us and change the way we look at ourselves. I think Obama could give hope to so many Americans that have none. Our system has taken away to many of Americans hopes and dreams for us to be the country that we are supposed to be. I know it takes hard work, family and education to get there but you can't put a price on more Americans thinking they have a chance. We need the masses to believe in the American dream again for our system to work ! What president since 1980 has ever done anything about a single issue ? There are so many variables that come into play for change. Example : the left uses fear that the right will over turn abortion. 20 yrs of Reagan and Bush, nothing has changed. .. Example : the right uses fear about national security and spending... Look at the last 7 yrs.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Even thou I like the idea and would support it... I would not vote for anyone based on this issue or ANY other single issue. It will take more than the president to change the tax system, abortion, education,war in iraq,immigration, & health care.. I have voted for presidents that I don't agree with point by point. I look at the big picture, who I think can lead the Country in a direction that gives Americans the chance to live their American dream. I'm looking for a leader of the free world, some one that will give hope to all that embrace freedom and peace not only in this country but around the world . I vote for a president that will keep it close to the truth. I think Iowa has us on the right path. The first nail is in the coffin of hillary, rudy and mitt. Good start but a long fight on our hands to take our government back from the people that feel they know whats good for us. The people that give away Americas wealth to the enemies of the American People, foreign and domestic. Whether it's a republican or a democrat we need to get a president as close to an outsider as we can. We need to demolish the core of the two most anti American forces that Our Country has ever seen. The reb & dem parties ! I could live with and support Huckabee or Obama, long way to go. Their not going to give it up, We have to take it back. Great sign with the numbers that showed up. They don't want us to vote. Hillary and Mitt and their backers worst fear came true last night. New voters. They don't want no stinking new voters. I voted for Reagan twice, thought he was the right guy at the right time given the choice. Have to say he has been the best since 80. Then it was Bush 41, Perot, Bush 43, can't remember the guys name, just basically couldn't vote for Bush or Gore.... I think Obama could change the way we do business, shake things up, change the way the world looks at us and change the way we look at ourselves. I think Obama could give hope to so many Americans that have none. Our system has taken away to many of Americans hopes and dreams for us to be the country that we are supposed to be. I know it takes hard work, family and education to get there but you can't put a price on more Americans thinking they have a chance. We need the masses to believe in the American dream again for our system to work ! What president since 1980 has ever done anything about a single issue ? There are so many variables that come into play for change. Example : the left uses fear that the right will over turn abortion. 20 yrs of Reagan and Bush, nothing has changed. .. Example : the right uses fear about national security and spending... Look at the last 7 yrs.

bryanz....

i didn't say that i would vote for any candidate based on 1 issue...i just wanted to know if any present candidate has proposed this idea.

and if you think any 1 candidate will change the way things are done in washington, i think you're mistaken. the system that is set up in wash. will prevent that from happening...the only way this takes place will be a complete over-all of the way things are done & we know that will not take place.

and imo, neither huckabee or obama have a shot at winning because yesterday's results don't mean a thing...i we will get a better idea who the winners will be after super tuesday....i think it will be hillary vs. mccain with mccain winning....
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
bryanz....

i didn't say that i would vote for any candidate based on 1 issue...i just wanted to know if any present candidate has proposed this idea.

and if you think any 1 candidate will change the way things are done in washington, i think you're mistaken. the system that is set up in wash. will prevent that from happening...the only way this takes place will be a complete over-all of the way things are done & we know that will not take place.

and imo, neither huckabee or obama have a shot at winning because yesterday's results don't mean a thing...i we will get a better idea who the winners will be after super tuesday....i think it will be hillary vs. mccain with mccain winning....

I didn't say what you or others would do, just what I would do. I agree with you 1000 %, on the pres changing wash. just looking to shake things up and slow the train down. I also agree novembers results could look a lot different from Iowa. All I said was it's a start.
 
Last edited:

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
43,602
2,365
113
On the course!
It's a great idea. I've loved it for years! That's why it will NEVER happen.

Right now, they tax you when you GET the money, AND spend it.......why cut part of that out?
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
I am a big fan of the idea. It promotes saving and has been pointed out accounts for all "black market" dollars. It is technically a regressive tax, but I am still for it.
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
I am a big fan of the idea. It promotes saving and has been pointed out accounts for all "black market" dollars. It is technically a regressive tax, but I am still for it.

Yes it is regressive. And lowers the value of any savings you already have made up until this point. If I've saved $10,000 from my paycheck over the last 5 years... THEN we switch to a huge sales consumption tax, I get the big screwgie. I've already paid income tax making it take longer to earn, then I'd have to pay a huge sales tax if I ever wanted to spend it.

We would definitely need to phase this in, not just turn a switch.

It won't effect people who don't need to spend most of their money on "things", but for poor people who spend 100% of their money each paycheck, it's very regressive.

That being said, it is still more philosophically appealing to me, because I don't think one's labor should be taxed.

Interesting stuff.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I am a big fan of the idea. It promotes saving and has been pointed out accounts for all "black market" dollars. It is technically a regressive tax, but I am still for it.

jw..

i'm missing what you mean by a regressive tax....can you elaborate ?

thanks
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Yes it is regressive. And lowers the value of any savings you already have made up until this point. If I've saved $10,000 from my paycheck over the last 5 years... THEN we switch to a huge sales consumption tax, I get the big screwgie. I've already paid income tax making it take longer to earn, then I'd have to pay a huge sales tax if I ever wanted to spend it.

We would definitely need to phase this in, not just turn a switch.

It won't effect people who don't need to spend most of their money on "things", but for poor people who spend 100% of their money each paycheck, it's very regressive.

That being said, it is still more philosophically appealing to me, because I don't think one's labor should be taxed.

Interesting stuff.

Great points on the transition and real implications that I honestly had only to a minor degree really taken into account. It is flawed, but it is philosophically appealing to me as well.

AR, I couldn't add much more than a wiki cut and paste on regressive taxation. I would think ImFeklhr has some original insight into the concept of regressive vs progressive taxation.
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
Yup, regressive tax basically means one in which "poor" people pay a larger portion of their income than "rich"

Social Security is one. Since you stop paying social security taxes at a certain point of earnings, it technically is regressive.

The income tax is progressive in that the more you make the higher your tax rate is.

One of the arguments I make when opposing taxes on things like cigarettes, is that they are regressive. A "poor" person who smokes a pack a day might spend 1% of their entire yearly income on cigarette taxes. Whereas for a "rich" smoker who spends the same dollar amount on cigarette taxes, it only comprises 0.25% of their income.

A consumption tax would do the same thing, as "poor" people spend all their money. Whereas "rich" people invest and save their money, shielding it from the consumption tax.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,553
305
83
Victory Lane
I was talking to a street wise man in his late 60s who I do some work for from time to time.

We got to talking about taxes.

He said to me that a consumption tax would be best. You wouldnt get taxed until you buy
something he explained.

Then he says, and if they do that I just wont
buy anything. I like controlling my own destiny.

I think he had a point.
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I think Huckleberry is for this. He is for some kind of a 23 percent sales tax after a flat tax on income or something like that. As far as I know he never really explained it and probably doesn't understand it himself. The press being what it is these days would never think of questioning him hard on the issue.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top