January 10, 2013
— Gabriel Malor Hot on the heels of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's proposal to replace his state's gasoline tax with a higher sales tax, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to replace his state's income and corporate taxes with a higher sales tax.
The precise details, as is so often the case, haven't been worked out yet:
"The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana's workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity," Jindal said in a statement released by his office. "It's time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs."Jindal said the plan would be revenue-neutral and that the goal would be to keep sales taxes "as low and flat as possible."
The immediate, unavoidable response will be protestations from Democrats that the income tax is the primary tool by which they can redistribute wealth from successful people to layabouts.
Gov. Jindal's response to that should be a smug smile and a single admission: "I know."
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
11:25 AM
| Comments (176)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: phoenixgirl so done with the GOP at January 10, 2013 11:27 AM (GVxQo)
Posted by: © Sponge at January 10, 2013 11:27 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 10, 2013 11:28 AM (R8hU8)
Posted by: phoenixgirl so done with the GOP at January 10, 2013 11:29 AM (GVxQo)
My only problem with this is that sales taxes in some respects tend to obscure the tax.
Although I guess no more than the income tax. More though than my Property tax which I have to write a check for each year.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 11:30 AM (ULkyQ)
The problem is that when you have an economic downturn tax revenue falls out the bottom.
Posted by: Vic at January 10, 2013 11:31 AM (53z96)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 11:32 AM (UZQM8)
Eliminate the tax on work and production and increase the tax on consumption. Both will lead to more work and production and saving, while also funding essential government services.
Moving to a sales tax-only system also makes it MUCH harder for politicians to jack up spending, because a higher sales tax is immediately felt by almost everyone, whereas a small increase in a state income tax rate only takes a buck or two out of most people's paychecks.
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2013 11:32 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at January 10, 2013 11:33 AM (mrnos)
Posted by: King Putt at January 10, 2013 11:34 AM (MFsWP)
Posted by: Ian S. at January 10, 2013 11:34 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 10, 2013 11:34 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 10, 2013 11:35 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: VIA, on the tiny keyboard at January 10, 2013 11:35 AM (jlngc)
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2013 11:35 AM (qE3AR)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 10, 2013 11:35 AM (evdj2)
Jindal said the plan would be revenue-neutral and that the goal would be to keep sales taxes "as low and flat as possible."
Um, I know this is a dumb question, but why not just have a low, flat tax to begin with?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 10, 2013 11:35 AM (yiIja)
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 10, 2013 11:36 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 10, 2013 11:36 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: Justamom at January 10, 2013 11:37 AM (rr5xK)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 10, 2013 11:37 AM (GFM2b)
Everyone should have skin in the game.
Posted by: Vic at January 10, 2013 11:37 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Joe Mama at January 10, 2013 11:38 AM (v9Cj5)
Posted by: Justamom at January 10, 2013 03:37 PM (rr5xK)
Why?
So that at the point where most people are at their wealthiest they get to stop paying for municipal services?
No thanks.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 11:39 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 03:38 PM (GQ8sn)
I think a VAT is tacked on at every stage of production, no?
Posted by: Tami at January 10, 2013 11:39 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 10, 2013 11:39 AM (+lsX1)
He's trying to find the lowest possible sales tax he can apply that will offset the losses in income and corporate taxes.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 11:39 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: ConcealedKerry or SubMitt at January 10, 2013 11:40 AM (vXqv3)
Gah, I hate this fucking phrasing.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 10, 2013 11:40 AM (ryAWr)
Well that's what's going to happen with Jindal's plan isn't it? A manufacturer has to buy the raw materials and pay the sales tax on them, then process it into the final good to be sold to consumers, who then pay the sales tax again on it.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 11:41 AM (GQ8sn)
Listen, there are no easy answers concerning taxes except to either raise them or cut spending.
Don't want to redistribute via taxes? Fine then tax everyone the same and then the poorest on low/fixed incomes have less to spend on necessities.
Don't try to claim that somehow that's fairer.
It's not.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka 3 tooth) at January 10, 2013 11:41 AM (3E2th)
Posted by: Justamom at January 10, 2013 03:37 PM (rr5xK)
Why?
So that at the point where most people are at their wealthiest they get to stop paying for municipal services?
No thanks.
Perhaps she's over 65?
As it stands, many people seem think that when you're 65 you're on a "fixed income" so you know...you're expenses should stay fixed as well I guess.
You should plan on increasing tax rates. Although, I personally don't like the idea merely owning something allows me to be taxed on it. It's one of the few ways in which renting outweighs the incentives stacked to make owning the preferred status.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 11:41 AM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 11:42 AM (UZQM8)
I think a VAT is tacked on at every stage of production, no?
As I understand it, yes. It's a Cascade Tax and should be avoided like the plague.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 10, 2013 11:42 AM (yiIja)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 10, 2013 11:43 AM (ROv35)
I thought sales tax was charged to the retail consumer. And that how it differs from a VAT.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 11:44 AM (GsoHv)
That wouldn't be a normal sales tax. Sales tax is not paid except on sale to the consumer. Resellers are exempt. You're describing a VAT.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 10, 2013 11:44 AM (QKKT0)
It is fair. Everyone is paying the same rate.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 11:44 AM (GQ8sn)
No thanks.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 03:39 PM (GsoHv)
I don't think that's what Justamom was saying. You'd still be paying property taxes; I believe she was advocating a freeze on rate increases, namely for retirees who may take spare time and some of their financial worth to improve their home, but who are then penalized through higher property taxes.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 10, 2013 11:44 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Justamom at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (RlvM2)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka 3 tooth) at January 10, 2013 03:41 PM (3E2th)
---------------------------------------------
Are you afraid someone will take away your 'bamapho?
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (gKwHR)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 03:41 PM (ULkyQ)
Nope.
Justamom is 28, with a smokin' hot body and a face to match.
Just like all the other Moronettes.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (GsoHv)
Well that went away right quick so people got to vote and had no skin in the game. And the thing that Alexis de Tocqueville warned of has come to pass. The FSA votes themselves a free lunch and someone else has to pay for it.
Posted by: Vic at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (53z96)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: EC
The article only discusses a sales tax. Sales taxes are on retail sales, not commercial. So if true, it's not a VAT.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (djdc7)
Listen, there are no easy answers concerning taxes except to either raise them or cut spending.
Don't want to redistribute via taxes? Fine then tax everyone the same and then the poorest on low/fixed incomes have less to spend on necessities.
Don't try to claim that somehow that's fairer.
It's not.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger (aka 3 tooth) at January 10, 2013 03:41 PM (3E2th)
FWIW, Missouri went ahead and waived the sales tax on necessities (namely unprepared food products and possibly a few household goods.)
The overall sales tax went up (IIRC) to offset this, but it meant that a poor person could also nearly avoid the sales tax if they so choose.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 11:45 AM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: Bosk at January 10, 2013 11:46 AM (n2K+4)
That wouldn't be a normal sales tax. Sales tax is not paid except on sale to the consumer. Resellers are exempt. You're describing a VAT. Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 10, 2013 03:44 PM (QKKT0)
I'm trying to figure out what Jindal's sales tax plan really is. Does it affect the resellers or just the final consumer?
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 11:46 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 10, 2013 11:47 AM (XUKZU)
Dems think anyone who is wealthy has a huge room in their house filled with platinum coins and that they go in that room daily and swim around in it a la Scrooge McDuck. They don't. The "wealthy" have accumulated wealth, not a huge income, so they don't get taxed at a rate that those who are trying to produce wealth do. The wealthy do spend money, and that is how you get their money into the governments' hands.
Posted by: MrCaniac at January 10, 2013 11:47 AM (Zd/NW)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at January 10, 2013 03:44 PM (4df7R)
But even if you froze the rates, would the taxes be allowed to go up as a result of appreciation?
Because otherwise it's just a nice gift to those over 65.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 11:48 AM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: KG at January 10, 2013 11:48 AM (p7BzH)
Hell, few people care about spending their own money responsibly.
What people DO care about is when their money is being stolen and they actually realize it.
We have a populace full of shallow-minded adult children. There is but one way to make them understand what's at stake: hit them where it hurts, their wallet. That is the truth.
So long as there are folks in this country paying no effective tax when all is said and done the stupidity will continue. A sales tax (by itself) or an honest representation of future taxation (by changing their rates/benefits now) are two solutions to doing that.
Personally, though, I say let it burn. >.>
Posted by: Kinley Ardal, LiB advocate at January 10, 2013 11:48 AM (mrnos)
I much prefer sales taxes (i.e., consumption taxes) to income taxes, franchise taxes, other taxes, maybe even gas taxes (though that is in essence a consumption tax). I'm not sure a trade of gas taxes for saless taxes is warranted, but to the extent that are at least eliminating one form of tax, that is probably a good thing.
The problem is that Jindal must trade income taxes for a higher sales tax rate. However, by eliminating income taxes, business taxes, or capital gains taxes, you should increase sales tax collections because the resultant increases in disposable income/investments will lead to more sale transactions.
So while I think it is a net positive trade for Jindal to make, it would be best if he could simply eliminate sales taxes.
Rick Perry should be using this latest surplus to get rid of franchise taxes in Texas. The new margins tax is a mess, and the sooner Texas gets rid of it the better. Ultimately, I think sales tax rates could go down to 5% and Texas would still be swimming in the dough.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 11:49 AM (gmeXX)
Oh, so I should get a discount simply because I am old? What about the increased use of libraries and senior services and emergency services? Who should pay for that?
Sorry, but making anyone a protected class is a bad idea.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 11:49 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Seriously, Sheldon/Penny to the end. at January 10, 2013 11:49 AM (VtjlW)
I count that as a plus.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 10, 2013 11:49 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 10, 2013 03:47 PM (XUKZU)
Eh. I can't read that, it's too painful. It just reminds me of how her life was destroyed by bad parenting.
When I have kids, I'd like to think that I would have the good sense to say "Fuck off" if someone said "Your kid has talent, let us take them to Hollywood!" So many children whose lives were destroyed by greed. -.-
Posted by: Kinley Ardal, LiB advocate at January 10, 2013 11:50 AM (mrnos)
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 11:50 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Justamom at January 10, 2013 11:50 AM (RlvM2)
In NJ there is no sales tax on food and clothing, so a poor person who is being careful can avoid most taxes.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 11:51 AM (GsoHv)
While I would also like to see property tax reductions in Texas, they are really county by county taxes, which is how it should be. The closer the taxing authority is to the person being taxed, the better. Then the residents can chose what is an appropriate tax amount for the county in which they live in. How much do they want to pay for county services and school boards.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 11:51 AM (gmeXX)
Just like all the other Moronettes.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 03:45 PM (GsoHv)
Too old. That's why I don't hang out here anymore. Could someone do a Disney themed post?
Posted by: Roman Polanski at January 10, 2013 11:51 AM (LVxGp)
Posted by: NCKate at January 10, 2013 11:52 AM (IYde+)
Oh, so I should get a discount simply because I am old? What about the increased use of libraries and senior services and emergency services? Who should pay for that?
=========
You're old?
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 10, 2013 11:52 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 10, 2013 11:52 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 03:48 PM (ULkyQ)
--------------------------------------------------
I'll take that fucking gift. Life starts to become a little iffy sometimes when a person reaches 65. We'd still be paying property taxes so that we can afford all of our wonderful sub-standard schools.
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2013 11:52 AM (gKwHR)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 10, 2013 11:52 AM (A+odv)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 10, 2013 11:52 AM (FsUAO)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at January 10, 2013 11:53 AM (qwK3S)
I like using sales taxes to replace income and property taxes, because everyone pays sales taxes, and thus their use kicks all the class warfare rhetoric right in the balls.
Proposals to raise sales taxes will generate howls of protest, not least from enlistees in the Free Shit Army, because they'll be paying them too. For once they will actually have skin in the taxation game, and will be more open to arguments that we don't need a lot of shit that we have now.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 10, 2013 11:53 AM (DXlwL)
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 11:53 AM (gmeXX)
Income tax punishes excessive work / effort, sales tax punishes excessive spending.
Any questions?
Posted by: AndrewsDad at January 10, 2013 11:53 AM (C2//T)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 10, 2013 11:53 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: AP at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (DrC22)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Seriously, Sheldon/Penny to the end. at January 10, 2013 03:49 PM (VtjlW)
The entire real estate process is designed to screw the buyer (and sometimes the seller too.)
You have two people in the middle conspiring to drive up the apparent price (to stuff the commission) while keeping down the actual amount of profit for the seller (to make the buyer feel better, although they are driving up for the price for him too.)
Meh.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (ULkyQ)
The other great advantage is that law-abiding people would have their privacy back. The income tax forces taxpayers to open their finances to unlimited inspection by the government. This sort of scrutiny should be reserved for convicted criminals. My finances should be none of the government's business.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 10, 2013 03:52 PM (MPjT
As soon as I hit post I knew some smart-ass was going to say that.
"So one should get a discount simply because one is old."
Feel better?
Now get off my lawn!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (ROv35)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 10, 2013 11:54 AM (FsUAO)
Posted by: KG at January 10, 2013 11:55 AM (p7BzH)
Fine
Raw, unprocessed, grain, meat, and vegetables/legumes, and normal milk/baby formula are tax free. Everything else is a damn luxury and should be taxed.
Don't want to be taxed on bread? Eat your damn wheat berries.
Liberals would whine that it is no type of life. I would respond with, if they want luxuries they just need to pay the taxes on them like everybody else.
Your peanuts are roasted or shelled? Tax
Uncle Ben's quick rice? Tax
TV Dinners? Tax
VegAll? Tax
Your greenbeans come out of a can? Tax
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 10, 2013 11:56 AM (0q2P7)
Proposals to raise sales taxes will generate howls of protest, not least from enlistees in the Free Shit Army, because they'll be paying them too.
----
Which is why Jindal shouldn't be proposing a trade of increased sales taxes for a reduction in income taxes. He should simply state that to be competitive with Texas, LA needs to eliminate the income tax. Even better, lower the sales tax, then everyone gets a tax reduction. In theory, this should lead to more tax receipts but might as well also link it to lower spending. I call it a win, win, win. The only people hurt are the children. They are always hurt.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 11:56 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2013 03:52 PM (gKwH)
No, we're not doing this "but it's good for me at that point" shit again.
I'd like to point to the current condition of the US as evidence why that doesn't work.
Also, now that I own a home, we still need to end the mortgage interest rate deduction (and lower rates across the board.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 11:57 AM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at January 10, 2013 11:57 AM (qwK3S)
Well that went away right quick so people got to vote and had no skin in the game. And the thing that Alexis de Tocqueville warned of has come to pass. The FSA votes themselves a free lunch and someone else has to pay for it.
Posted by: Vic at January 10, 2013 03:45 PM (53z96)
Again, the 26th amendment was a suicide pill.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 10, 2013 11:57 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 10, 2013 11:57 AM (feFL6)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Seriously, Sheldon/Penny to the end. at January 10, 2013 11:57 AM (VtjlW)
Granted I don't really know shit about Lohan other than what I read in that article and news of her various escapades that make it through my Don't Give A Shit About Lindsay Lohan Wall, but unless there is some documented history of parental abuse, I have a hard time taking a flaming Histrionic's word about how she was raised.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 10, 2013 03:54 PM (ROv35)
Was she abused? I don't know, kinda doubt it. What I was saying was that they destroyed the kid by letting her become a star.
And who is the histrionic in question? O.o I'm confused.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal, LiB advocate at January 10, 2013 11:57 AM (mrnos)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 10, 2013 11:58 AM (A+odv)
I hope Jindal is successful in eliminating business taxes. That may spur Perry to propose to eliminate the franchise tax in Texas. It is not necessary.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 11:58 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 11:58 AM (UZQM8)
When I lived in Canada, we had a VAT-like tax called the GST. It was a national sales tax on top of the provincial sales tax. It was often called the "Gouge and Screw Tax" for good reason.
The GST got weird when it was applied to the grocery store. In a completely ham-fisted attempt to be "fair" to the poor, the GST was only applied to certain kinds of food and not others. The GST was levied on any kind of food that had preparation required before it was sold, and not on raw foods. So a birthday cake you picked up in the bakery section had the tax, while the eggs, flour, milk, and sugar did not. It was fucked up.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 11:59 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 10, 2013 11:59 AM (XvHmy)
Posted by: rockmom at January 10, 2013 03:35 PM (qE3AR)
One of my vendors charge me sales tax on shipping and handling charges. I'm still looking into whether that is kosher.
Posted by: polynikes at January 10, 2013 11:59 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 10, 2013 12:00 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at January 10, 2013 12:01 PM (NzBQO)
And how exactly am I supposed to afford that big screen and data plan?
Posted by: average poor American at January 10, 2013 12:02 PM (YXmuI)
Property taxes shouldn't penalize people who create jobs and grow the economy. It's a house, damnit, not a scourge on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------
Uh oh. Someone's not eviromentally aware.
Posted by: Soona at January 10, 2013 12:02 PM (gKwHR)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 10, 2013 03:57 PM (feFL6)
That penalizes businesses in competitive industries, and rewards high margin industries.
Bad, bad idea.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 10, 2013 12:02 PM (GsoHv)
Currently it's only 6.25% at the state level. Granted, every penny counts, but a 1.25% drop in nothing to get excited about.
Well it is 8.25% for many residents due to local sales tax add ons. I'm ok with that because of my belief that if a government is going to tax you, it should be as local a governement as possible. In any event, I wasn't saying that Texas necessarily should go to a 5% rate, but I think it could easily. So yea, it should. Imagine telling a business in CA the following:
Come to Texas, no income tax, no business tax, the only state tax is a sales tax of 5%.
Just sounds better than 6.25%.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 12:03 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 03:59 PM (GQ8sn)
This isn't too far off from MO's approach. The idea is that if you just ended it on all food you'd lose too much and have to increase the other tax to much. (Plus what about fast food? Restaurants?) So you only waive the tax on "raw" foods that required preparation. (To remove the class warfare rhetoric without increasing it too much.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 12:04 PM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Seriously, Sheldon/Penny to the end. at January 10, 2013 12:05 PM (VtjlW)
Property taxes shouldn't penalize people who create jobs and grow the economy. It's a house, damnit, not a scourge on the planet.
---
As long as property taxes are basically local county and school board taxes, that is probably the best a conservative can hope for. You pretty much dictate the level of service you want with where you want to live. Texas property taxes are pretty much local taxes. Not sure in other states. That being said, they should be lower to. What I don't like in Texas is elderly exemptions on property taxes. Why should they get that benefit.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 12:06 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 10, 2013 12:06 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 10, 2013 12:06 PM (ROv35)
Don't try to claim that somehow that's fairer.
It's not.
It is. Totally fair, if words have any meaning at all. It may not be wise, however. Posted by: toby928© for TB
It offends the basic, innate human sense of justice to tell someone that they will have to go without food, shelter, or clothing to pay for the government.
Rail and gnash your teeth all you want, my fellow morons, but there is no way on God's green earth that you will get far with an argument that poor people living hand to mouth on fixed incomes will just have to suck it up so we can have some type of "fair" tax that hits everyone.
It. Won't. Happen.
You're substituting libertarian ideological fantasies for socialist redistributionist ones, and there are not that many voting libertarians.
If there's any type of switch from income to sales tax, basic necessities like groceries have to be excluded. They have to be. And then you'll have to get ready for luxury taxes, because that's the only way that the tax stream is going to be enough.
No matter how you slice it, the rich will always have to pay the lion's share in taxes, because they have the most income over and above basic necessities.
Period.
Posted by: imp at January 10, 2013 12:07 PM (UaxA0)
Well I'd tax the sugar and the flour. Both are luxuries. Eat your damn wheat berries and like it or pay sales tax.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 10, 2013 12:07 PM (0q2P7)
Yeah, any kind of food that was prepared beforehand to be sold to consumers was taxed. So fast food, restaurants, etc all had the GST applied. The idea was to leave the most basic unprocessed foods alone so that the poor were able to buy their staples without getting hit too hard.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 12:08 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Obamaboro, Vt and Proud of it !!!!!!!!!! at January 10, 2013 12:08 PM (48wze)
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 12:09 PM (gmeXX)
It. Won't. Happen.
You're substituting libertarian ideological fantasies for socialist
redistributionist ones, and there are not that many voting libertarians.
If there's any type of switch from income to sales tax, basic necessities like groceries have to be excluded. They have to be. And then you'll have to get ready for luxury taxes, because that's the only way that the tax stream is going to be enough.
No matter how you slice it, the rich will always have to pay the lion's share in taxes, because they have the most income over and above basic necessities.
Period.
Posted by: imp at January 10, 2013 04:07 PM (UaxA0)
I would go for no taxes on the poor provided they didn't get to vote. The problem with poor people voting is that they create the "Free Shit Army."
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 10, 2013 12:09 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: occam at January 10, 2013 12:10 PM (cWOlF)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 10, 2013 12:10 PM (8sCoq)
Yep, whenever "value" is added to the product (which is a book keeping nightmare).
Essentially, its a "wealth creation" tax...
...BUT, it has one advantage over a sales tax. In the secondary/used markets, no value is added to anything, so things like used cars, thrift store items and such wouldn't be taxed repeatedly as they change hands over and over.
With sales tax, you bleed forever, with VAT you bleed on the initial sale. Basically VAT incentivises societal thrift and extraction of maximum long term value from something until it meets it final reward in the land fill.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 10, 2013 12:10 PM (BNacf)
Whodda thunk that taxpayers ought to be revered or something?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 10, 2013 12:11 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 12:11 PM (UZQM8)
that's brilliant. Voting is limited to federal taxpayers. And we'll slice the bread before we sell it.
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 10, 2013 12:12 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 12:12 PM (UZQM8)
Posted by: Gov. Moonbeam at January 10, 2013 12:14 PM (XvHmy)
The economy really is pretty simple.
1. Exploit natural resources.
2. Keep taxes low - don't tax income and savings.
3. Keep regulations low.
If only we had a GOP candidate who would have run on such a simple plan. D'oh.
Instead we get someone who runs on "I'm going to make China play by the rules."
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 12:14 PM (gmeXX)
Bush v1.0 tried that in the late 80's. It destroyed the south FL marina/boat industry, which never really recovered and threw thousands out of work. The "rich" suddenly stop buying luxury shit when you try to bone them too hard.
I was living in Ft. Lauderdale at the time, and the effect was fast and devastating.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 10, 2013 12:15 PM (BNacf)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 04:12 PM (UZQM8
Go to Hell USL , Go to Hell
Go to Hell USL , Go To Hell
Been awhile since I've said that.
Posted by: polynikes from Lake Charles at January 10, 2013 12:16 PM (m2CN7)
The sales tax stayed at 3% for the longest time. But hen we had to do it for the "chirruns at school" and they commenced their steady increase to 10.5%
The schools are worst than they were in the 50s and we pay 10 times the amount for them. So where is all that money going? There are hundreds of local government bureaucracies now from the old police and fire down to some stupid women's services offices that I have no idea what they do.
And every time we have a county council meeting there is a string of those leeches lineup to beg for more money for their programs that according to them are simply indispensable.
Posted by: Vic at January 10, 2013 12:16 PM (53z96)
Kind of like Heinlein's franchise rights: you become a "citizen" and get to vote ONLY after military service. The idea was to ingrain some kind of understanding of your role in the whole, how your actions can affect others, and how important it was to participate in civics.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 12:16 PM (GQ8sn)
Pennsylvania's sales tax is just 6 percent.
I can say 'just' since i live 200 yards from the Delaware border
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at January 10, 2013 12:17 PM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 10, 2013 12:17 PM (9eDbm)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 10, 2013 04:07 PM (0q2P7)
Actually I looked and the MO system is a reduction (not an elimination, but basically one) for anything that can be bought on food stamps.
If I had to guess, I'd say there was an efficiency argument there, rather than having to have grocery stores program registers double, they just got to use the same list of items. (Although that list should be shrunk too.)
Flour is needed to do a lot of cooking (soups, stews, etc.) so, meh, whatever. I'd rather have people buying flour than candy. (Plus at this point our system is efficient enough flour is starting to be cheaper than stopping the process and shipping raw wheat.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 10, 2013 12:18 PM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Seriously, Sheldon/Penny to the end. at January 10, 2013 12:18 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 10, 2013 12:19 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 04:06 PM (gmeXX)
---- Hey, watch it you little whippersnapper
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 10, 2013 12:19 PM (R8hU8)
The LSU Dance Team.
http://tinyurl.com/b9b4dx3
Go Bobby Jindal!!!
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 12:19 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Seriously, Sheldon/Penny to the end. at January 10, 2013 12:19 PM (VtjlW)
Vladimir Putin figured this out.
The Russian Federation income tax is a flat 13%, and their corporate tax is a flat 20%. 18% VAT.
Their GDP is growing briskly and unemployment is in the 5-6% range.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 10, 2013 12:19 PM (BNacf)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 12:20 PM (UZQM8)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 10, 2013 12:20 PM (BNacf)
The Russian Federation income tax is a flat 13%, and their corporate tax is a flat 20%. 18% VAT.
Their GDP is growing briskly and unemployment is in the 5-6% range.
It's a sad day when the commies tell us how it works.
*facepalm*
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 12:21 PM (GQ8sn)
Excluding basic food and clothing from sales taxes is not only good policy, but arguably the only moral option. The problem is what is basic food and cloting. Does GAP count? So it gets pretty dicey. Better course of action is to simply have a very low sales tax to begin with. Only tax at the initial point of sale (e.g., exclude garage sales, etc.). And move along. That being said, some compromiess are in order and if excluding food is one of those compromises. Then I'll take the benefit as well.
Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 12:23 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: gigg at January 10, 2013 12:24 PM (41VCE)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 12:25 PM (UZQM8)
*facepalm*
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 04:21 PM (GQ8sn)
I know right?
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 10, 2013 12:25 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 04:25 PM (UZQM
Terrell Su g g s and his pals will spend most of their time sucking oxygen on the sidelines
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 10, 2013 12:26 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: cajun carrot at January 10, 2013 04:20 PM (UZQM
Can't really blame them. They always wanted to be University of Lousiana but LSU put the kabosh on that. There can only be one King. That's why this McNeese graduate roots against LSU.
Posted by: polynikes from Lake Charles at January 10, 2013 12:26 PM (m2CN7)
The Russians now know communism doesn't work. Even the old diehards are becoming politically marginalized.
Whatever Putin is doing, its working. The crackdowns on govt corruption, and mechanisms put in place to minimize institutionalized corruption look impressive so far to me.
If I have to have a strongman, I'd much rather have a Putin than an Obama.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 10, 2013 12:28 PM (BNacf)
What flavour polonium do you like best? I like vanilla.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 12:30 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Jean at January 10, 2013 12:33 PM (kdfQ/)
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 04:30 PM (GQ8sn)
--- True dat
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 10, 2013 12:34 PM (R8hU8)
Posted by: Jean at January 10, 2013 12:34 PM (kdfQ/)
Am I the only person who breaks out in hives when someone who is out of preschool bleats about "fairness?"
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 10, 2013 12:38 PM (DXlwL)
160My plan, 20% state excise tax on Obamaphones and SSDI payments, for the children.
Posted by: Jean at January 10, 2013 04:33 PM (kdfQ/)
I like a 50% tax on lawsuit settlement payments, and actors' remuneration, for the polar bears.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 10, 2013 12:40 PM (DXlwL)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 10, 2013 12:40 PM (C8mVl)
Posted by: sexypig at January 10, 2013 12:41 PM (dZQh7)
Posted by: sexypig at January 10, 2013 12:41 PM (dZQh7)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 10, 2013 12:46 PM (feFL6)
So tax and spend policies become... problematic... because politicians can't promise "someone else" will pay.
The problem... and why I've ALWAYS voted against a sales tax in Oregon, is that they Democrats refuse to discontinue income and/or property taxes. You can't give them multiple ways to Loot. Starve the Beast.
Posted by: DANEgerus at January 10, 2013 12:52 PM (e3/KR)
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2013 03:59 PM (GQ8sn)
The GST is waived, as you added later, for those items considered to be "staples". A frozen pizza is "prepared food", so it is taxed. Flour is not. Nor are fresh meat and veggies. I pay GST on a haircut. As a small contractor in the oilpatch, I have to charge GST on my services, do a GST return quarterly, and cut the government a check. And that GST return, you know it's a whole ONE page! How dare they burden me with that paperwork? It must take me at least ten minutes to fill out every quarter.
GST is currently at five percent. I'd be happy as a pig in sh*t if they raised it 20% and eliminated the Federal income tax. How much GST one pays as a consumer is almost entirely predicated upon how large one lives. Buy used goods in (legal) private sales, you pay no GST. Cars, furniture, computers, whatever. Buy from used-goods dealers, you do pay GST, based, I think, on the notion that such dealers provide a "service". Buy new, and of course you pay GST. I'm pretty frugal, so I don't pay a heck of a lot of GST.
As to property tax, the largest fraction of it here is used to fund education. I really think there needs to be an overhaul of that. Why should my home have to pay the operating costs of the local schools, when it doesn't benefit? I can see charging the capital cost of schools to property tax, because the presence of a nice quality school building in the area should, by rights, improve my property value. But operating costs should be funded out of general provincial revenue. Basically, it costs X dollars per student per year to provide the schooling, whether in a one-room schoolhouse, or a fancy architect-designed "campus". In other words, try to put as much of this service as possible on a user-pay basis. My house and land "uses" the existence of a modern school building to gain resale value that makes it worth more than a similar property located in a district with an old, run-down school. But the population, as a whole, "uses" the service of teaching children, to keep them off the streets, and maybe even prepare them to get jobs and become good little taxpayers, so the population, as a whole, should fund that service via broad-based tax revenue.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 10, 2013 12:54 PM (29+x5)
I think S.F.'s sales tax is around 9% (it was recently changed). We have Prop 13 (liberals gag saying it) which prohibits reassessments unless properties change hands. Our top state inc. rate is 9.3% (that may have also been raised to 10% for the "rich") and it starts around $40,000!
Posted by: SFGoth at January 10, 2013 01:05 PM (dZ756)
What I don't like in Texas is elderly exemptions on property taxes. Why should they get that benefit.Posted by: SH at January 10, 2013 04:06 PM
-
They aren't exempt, the taxes are frozen at age 65.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 10, 2013 01:05 PM (a/BVM)
Posted by: SmileyNH at January 10, 2013 01:09 PM (hlZx/)
Posted by: SmileyNH at January 10, 2013 01:13 PM (hlZx/)
Posted by: theBuckWheat at January 10, 2013 01:49 PM (SsVuS)
The problem is that no one feels the pull, except the w9's out there, aka the rich, so this minority is demonized and marginalized.......
Posted by: vikingsfan at January 10, 2013 04:16 PM (IboCP)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2011 seconds, 304 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: phoenixgirl so done with the GOP at January 10, 2013 11:25 AM (GVxQo)