Are you happy with Obama as President?

[Dolomite_supafly]

A national sales tax will never take hold. The reason is because the power is placed in the hands of the citizens again. Rigth now we pay no matter how we feel about our represenatives, we can hate what they are doing with our money but there is little we can do. But with a national sales tax we can decide to spend less when times are hard and budget. This would cause the federal government to do the same and they will nto allow that.

Anything and everything being passed is about control. We have no control over what our representatives do once they are in office. We hope they will listen to us but they never do and only listen to their own agendas. And the control they exert is for the purpose of completing their agendas.

In a perfect world a 30% national sales tax should replace any state of federal income tax. People say 30% is too high be most people are paying well above that in income tax alone. And most Americans would have more money to spend on stuff they wanted. But the biggest reason is you get those who do not pay any taxes, the illegals, the drug dealers as well as those receiving benefits that they never contributed to.

Dolomite

Dolomite

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In a perfect world a 30% national sales tax should replace any state of federal income tax. People say 30% is too high be most people are paying well above that in income tax alone. And most Americans would have more money to spend on stuff they wanted. But the biggest reason is you get those who do not pay any taxes, the illegals, the drug dealers as well as those receiving benefits that they never contributed to.

Thanks Dolomite

I think it might fly if there are no exceptions-- If it applies to everything-- Just a generalized transaction tax, same rate for all transactions, no exceptions.

Additional benefit, a no-exceptions transaction tax would have a remarkably low rate on each individual transaction. It would make "speculation gambling" and "stock churning and day trading" less profitable. I'm not saying such behaviors should be illegal, but "skimming billions off the top" is activity that doesn't add obvious value to the system that I can see. Corporate capitalization is a remarkable invention of civilization which lead to steel mills and cheap-mass-production. But "skimming off the top" of equity ebb and flow doesn't build more steel mills or bring better-cheaper products to humanity. Skimming off the top is pretty good for making a fortune on the backs of failed companies, however.

A problem with most all tax schemes is that it can be gamed and people are expert gamers. People hate tax so much that they will do stupid stuff with their money that doesn't help their self-interest, just to avoid tax. So any tax scheme with avoidance strategies is actually paying people to run their biz (and the general economy) in an inefficient fashion. Overall if people get taxed exactly the same regardless what they do with their money, then presumably, statistically speaking they will use the money to their own best interest, and the economy will tend toward maximum efficiency.

Boortz' Fair Tax or Forbes' Flat Tax have too many exclusions and would be gamed in such a way as to make the effective tax rate "un flat" and cause people to economically behave in an inefficient distorted fashion. A sales tax with numerous exclusions would collect more tax from drug kingpins, home invaders and shade tree mechanics, but it would also be a "Steve Forbes and George Soros don't hardly have to pay any tax at all" law. It would unrealistically distort the value of used goods upwards, and unrealistically distort the value of new goods downwards, causing people to make tax-avoidance economic decisions just as silly as the dumb things people do with money under our current system just to avoid tax.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A national sales tax will never take hold. The reason is because the power is placed in the hands of

the citizens again. Rigth now we pay no matter how we feel about our represenatives, we can hate what they

are doing with our money but there is little we can do. But with a national sales tax we can decide to spend less when times are hard and budget. This would cause the federal government to do the same and they

will nto allow that.

Anything and everything being passed is about control. We have no control over what our representatives do once they are in office. We hope they will listen to us but they never do and only listen to their own agendas. And the control they exert is for the purpose of completing their agendas.

In a perfect world a 30% national sales tax should replace any state of federal income tax. People say 30% is too high be most people are paying well above that in income tax alone. And most Americans would have more money to spend on stuff they wanted. But the biggest reason is you get those who do not pay any taxes, the illegals, the drug dealers as well as those receiving benefits that they never contributed to.

Dolomite

Dolomite

The percentage of any tax depends on how much control over our lives we are willing to give up to a

central government. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your use of 30% as acceptable, but I will challenge you to think what that number should be after you decide what the government's role should

be. Right now is a poor baseline to draw the number from because of all the wasted, unnecessary things government actually claims to do. And is all about power and distribution of wealth from one to another

after the government takes their cut out. It is very inefficient use of wealth.

I would always say the smallest amount to do the most necessary things governments are beholden would be most acceptable. The rest is just fluff and totally outside the Constitutional requirements and are used to politically gain power over the individual, the largest minority.

Edited August 4, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thanks Dolomite

I think it might fly if there are no exceptions-- If it applies to everything-- Just a generalized transaction tax, same rate for all transactions, no exceptions.

Additional benefit, a no-exceptions transaction tax would have a remarkably low rate on each individual transaction. It would make "speculation gambling" and "stock churning and day trading" less profitable. I'm not saying such behaviors should be illegal, but "skimming billions off the top" is activity that doesn't add obvious value to the system that I can see. Corporate capitalization is a remarkable invention of civilization which lead to steel mills and cheap-mass-production. But "skimming off the top" of equity ebb and flow doesn't build more steel mills or bring better-cheaper products to humanity. Skimming off the top is pretty good for making a fortune on the backs of failed companies, however.

A problem with most all tax schemes is that it can be gamed and people are expert gamers. People hate tax so much that they will do stupid stuff with their money that doesn't help their self-interest, just to avoid tax. So any tax scheme with avoidance strategies is actually paying people to run their biz (and the general economy) in an inefficient fashion. Overall if people get taxed exactly the same regardless what they do with their money, then presumably, statistically speaking they will use the money to their own best interest, and the economy will tend toward maximum efficiency.

Boortz' Fair Tax or Forbes' Flat Tax have too many exclusions and would be gamed in such a way as to make the effective tax rate "un flat" and cause people to economically behave in an inefficient distorted fashion. A sales tax with numerous exclusions would collect more tax from drug kingpins, home invaders and shade tree mechanics, but it would also be a "Steve Forbes and George Soros don't hardly have to pay any tax at all" law. It would unrealistically distort the value of used goods upwards, and unrealistically distort the value of new goods downwards, causing people to make tax-avoidance economic decisions just as silly as the dumb things people do with money under our current system just to avoid tax.

Lester, I have to disagree with your assertion about Boortz or Forbes tax scheme, and all tax schemes are schemes. A flat or fair tax would be brutally more honest than a system of income and then layers of income and sales taxes alike that artificially inflate cost of goods that take people out of the ability to purchase those goods, directly proportional to their income. When you strip away the levels of taxation in all goods produced and sold, prices drop. I won't say there are not dishonest people out there in commerce, but it would make a Hell of a lot more of them honest when they realize the economy is working more for them than against.

Capitalism's biggest enemy is people not being free to trade. Taxation is the lynch pin that keeps people from trading like they should be able to.

Inflation is directly related to government intervention by taxation and fiddling with the money supply to the point that it encourages the destruction of wealth. Inflation is caused by the government, not by capitalism.

If you take the shackles off of free men, you allow growth, productivity and freedom to flourish, rather than let that same government play the provider and stifle it. A flat or fair tax is but one step towards freedom

that capitalism has not really been able to see or use for a long time.

Strip off all the warning labels and let freedom have a damned chance. People will get back to doing for themselves, like they should.

Obama is using all the ideas of taxation and social controls to put us in our place, along with more regulations to keep us from using our own resources. He is a communist and is utilizing that doctrine to destroy this country.

You're damned right I'm not happy with him.

Edited August 4, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest ThePunisher]

Obama is using all the ideas of taxation and social controls to put us in our place, along with more regulations to keep us from using our own resources. He is a communist and is utilizing that doctrine to destroy this country.

You're damned right I'm not happy with him.

If only the sheeple could understand this, and not be led over the cliff.

You're damned right I'm not happy with the commie either.

Edited August 4, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Oh Shoot]

.... A flat or fair tax would be brutally more honest than a system of income and then layers of income and sales taxes ...

Reason we won't have the Fair Tax is that it's totally anonymous. The tax code is used to reward/punish for influence and votes. That's why it's as extensive as it is, and why it gets tweaked in incremental ways, to benefit certain parts of the public responsible for money flow to the Washington machine.

With a fair tax, the pols couldn't say, "look how we helped you out on this" to any particular segment. It also negates any statistics for individuals or income strata.

By all accounts, the gummit would be rolling in dough like never before, since even the underground economy/black market and illegals would be paying it to a large extent.

But it doesn't solve the basic problem that the bums would still spend every dime of it, and waste/graft a nickle of each dime. And still not pay down the debt at all.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester, I have to disagree with your assertion about Boortz or Forbes tax scheme, and all tax schemes are schemes. A flat or fair tax would be brutally more honest than a system of income and then layers of income and sales taxes alike that artificially inflate cost of goods that take people out of the ability to purchase those goods, directly proportional to their income. When you strip away the levels of taxation in all goods produced and sold, prices drop. I won't say there are not dishonest people out there in commerce, but it would make a Hell of a lot more of them honest when they realize the economy is working more for them than against.

Capitalism's biggest enemy is people not being free to trade. Taxation is the lynch pin that keeps people from trading like they should be able to.

Thanks 6.8

I agree that the gov should be smaller and spend less and have less control over our lives. And tax as little as possible and as fair as possible. I agree that piling on property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tobacco taxes, nut taxes, bolt taxes, telecom taxes, walking out in the yard taxes, etc are stoopid.

It seems that when a gov wants money-- Any gov from ancient pharoahs up til today-- It must be stolen as efficiently possible. Additionally, a wise tyrant would steal in ways least likely to foment revolt, because it is expensive to put down revolts. Revolts eat into the profit margin.

So property taxes can be efficiently collected because it is easy to find the property owners and threaten to break a leg unless they pay up. It is easy to skim off the top of "legit income". It is easy to skim off the top of "retail sales". It is easy to skim off the top of tobacco sales or utility bills. They want to get the most money with the least effort.

Ferinstance maybe Chattanooga would decide to entirely fund the gov with a street tax. Put up a roadblock on market street and a cop shakes down every citizen for a dime for going down market street. After awhile, nobody goes down market street but traffic increases on broad street and cherry street. So put up roadblocks on broad and cherry to steal dimes from those folks. Then folks take more devious routes and downtown becomes a ghost town. Put up enough roadblocks and the whole city becomes a ghost town. People are traveling thru back yards and jumping between rooftops in order to avoid the street tax. People are spending 10 bucks extra in gas money and adding an extra hour on the commute just to avoid paying that extra dime of street tax. And in addition, it is real expensive to maintain all those roadblocks, which eats into the theft profits.

You want less of something, tax it. You want more of something, subsidize it. If half the stuff is taxed but the other half ain't, then the untaxed half is basically being subsidized.

I'm not saying Boortz' fair tax is worse than the current mish-mash, but it is hard to see it significantly better. The Fair Tax just focuses on one of the many traditional "easy targets for theft". Yer putting up roadblocks at retail stores, and gonna run the whole gov on that set of roadblocks. Just like putting up roadblocks on all the streets and running the entire gov on the street tax. Or setting up roadblocks on all sources of income you can locate.

People will flock to untaxed activities and shun taxed activities. Income will fall for anybody making, transporting, or selling services or new-manufactured goods. Those folks will make less money and a percentage of them will go out of biz. Everybody and his brother will want to be a real estate shyster or an investment banker, because those activites won't be taxed. The man on the street makes a buck, he can either buy a new car and pay high tax, or he can buy an old junker and avoid tax. Bye-bye car biz except last-ditch replacement buys. Most likely the gov would have to buy massive numbers of fleet vehicles then sell em off used annually just so people would continue to buy cars.

The man on the street gets an extra buck, he can either give it to a carpenter to fix the house (and pay tax on it), or he can give that buck tax-free to bernie madeoff or steve forbes to "invest it" tax free. Less carpenters and more investment shysters. Less manufacturers and more real estate speculators.

The Fair Tax would distort the market just as bad as the current system where people make intentional stupid business decisions to reduce the tax burden.

But a consumption tax wouldn't heavily distort the economy if EVERY TRANSACTION gets hit exactly the same. It might reduce the absolute magnitude of economic activity as people sit on their stack to avoid it getting taxed. There is no perfect scheme. It would also make products with a long supply chain more expensive and make products with a short supply chain less expensive. A no-exceptions transaction tax would have the lowest possible rate per transaction, compared to other systems, which ought to overall lower the tax load on yer average joe. But it would cost deep pocket guys so much money, they would pay fox news to tell everybody how evil a transaction tax would be, and then conservatives would never vote for it.

[res308]

NO! I cannot stand the thought of 4 more years with this Marxist/Fascist Muslim. I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils than to vote for the evil of two lessers. I can't stand Romney either, but that's who I'll vote for.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Reason we won't have the Fair Tax is that it's totally anonymous. The tax code is used to reward/punish for influence and votes. That's why it's as extensive as it is, and why it gets tweaked in incremental ways, to benefit certain parts of the public responsible for money flow to the Washington machine.

With a fair tax, the pols couldn't say, "look how we helped you out on this" to any particular segment. It also negates any statistics for individuals or income strata.

By all accounts, the gummit would be rolling in dough like never before, since even the underground economy/black market and illegals would be paying it to a large extent.

But it doesn't solve the basic problem that the bums would still spend every dime of it, and waste/graft a nickle of each dime. And still not pay down the debt at all.

- OS

That's the problem with all of them. Any tax should be so hard to increase and any expenditure should be so hard to

implement that the incentive to spend it is taken away. I hate the bums, too, Mac.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thanks 6.8

I agree that the gov should be smaller and spend less and have less control over our lives. And tax as little as possible and as fair as possible. I agree that piling on property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tobacco taxes, nut taxes, bolt taxes, telecom taxes, walking out in the yard taxes, etc are stoopid.

It seems that when a gov wants money-- Any gov from ancient pharoahs up til today-- It must be stolen as efficiently possible. Additionally, a wise tyrant would steal in ways least likely to foment revolt, because it is expensive to put down revolts. Revolts eat into the profit margin.

So property taxes can be efficiently collected because it is easy to find the property owners and threaten to break a leg unless they pay up. It is easy to skim off the top of "legit income". It is easy to skim off the top of "retail sales". It is easy to skim off the top of tobacco sales or utility bills. They want to get the most money with the least effort.

Ferinstance maybe Chattanooga would decide to entirely fund the gov with a street tax. Put up a roadblock on market street and a cop shakes down every citizen for a dime for going down market street. After awhile, nobody goes down market street but traffic increases on broad street and cherry street. So put up roadblocks on broad and cherry to steal dimes from those folks. Then folks take more devious routes and downtown becomes a ghost town. Put up enough roadblocks and the whole city becomes a ghost town. People are traveling thru back yards and jumping between rooftops in order to avoid the street tax. People are spending 10 bucks extra in gas money and adding an extra hour on the commute just to avoid paying that extra dime of street tax. And in addition, it is real expensive to maintain all those roadblocks, which eats into the theft profits.

You want less of something, tax it. You want more of something, subsidize it. If half the stuff is taxed but the other half ain't, then the untaxed half is basically being subsidized.

I'm not saying Boortz' fair tax is worse than the current mish-mash, but it is hard to see it significantly better. The Fair Tax just focuses on one of the many traditional "easy targets for theft". Yer putting up roadblocks at retail stores, and gonna run the whole gov on that set of roadblocks. Just like putting up roadblocks on all the streets and running the entire gov on the street tax. Or setting up roadblocks on all sources of income you can locate.

People will flock to untaxed activities and shun taxed activities. Income will fall for anybody making, transporting, or selling services or new-manufactured goods. Those folks will make less money and a percentage of them will go out of biz. Everybody and his brother will want to be a real estate shyster or an investment banker, because those activites won't be taxed. The man on the street makes a buck, he can either buy a new car and pay high tax, or he can buy an old junker and avoid tax. Bye-bye car biz except last-ditch replacement buys. Most likely the gov would have to buy massive numbers of fleet vehicles then sell em off used annually just so people would continue to buy cars.

The man on the street gets an extra buck, he can either give it to a carpenter to fix the house (and pay tax on it), or he can give that buck tax-free to bernie madeoff or steve forbes to "invest it" tax free. Less carpenters and more investment shysters. Less manufacturers and more real estate speculators.

The Fair Tax would distort the market just as bad as the current system where people make intentional stupid business decisions to reduce the tax burden.

But a consumption tax wouldn't heavily distort the economy if EVERY TRANSACTION gets hit exactly the same. It might reduce the absolute magnitude of economic activity as people sit on their stack to avoid it getting taxed. There is no perfect scheme. It would also make products with a long supply chain more expensive and make products with a short supply chain less expensive. A no-exceptions transaction tax would have the lowest possible rate per transaction, compared to other systems, which ought to overall lower the tax load on yer average joe. But it would cost deep pocket guys so much money, they would pay fox news to tell everybody how evil a transaction tax would be, and then conservatives would never vote for it.

And if any consumption tax would be hit exactly the same way, there would no reason for it to be very high, because it would fill the coffers. That's why it should difficult as Hell for them to spend it, in the first place.

[Defender]

Apply some logic here. It WILL be either Romney or Obama. It wont be some 3rd party 2nd Amendment superhero written in by the masses. Romney or Obama. You vote (or non-vote) will help one of these two people, either directly help Romney, or directly or indirectly help Obama. A vote for for anyone but Romney, or a non vote, will be like a partial vote for Obama. Im obviously not a mathematician but I think there's actually a formula that would depict this better than my meager attempt, You've just got to decide which one of these two guys you want to help get in/stay in office. Cuz, rest assured we will ALL help one of them. Anyone who wont vote for Romney out of principle must understand that they will help reelect Obama, either by direct action or inaction. Im not a big fan of many of Romneys' past practices, but do I think he'd be better than Obama? No contest here, Im voting for Romney!

[kieefer]

As if many don't know this but Obaloney is a bold face lair, reason enough to replace him.

He will be using the same sewer level tactics he use to win his Senate seat.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

When you take away the use of money as power, you take away the career politician. Our tax code was made

for career politicians because it is the ultimate tool for entitlement spending. Karl Marx was absolutely right.

That's the main reason we should do away with it: to put the citizen back in Washington as a part of doing his

civic duty, and not going there to gain power.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm about as happy with Obamaloney as I am with a daily headache and the squirts. You can tell this country is crumbling fast when over half the voters don't have a clue as to the commie's policies of Marxism/communism. They don't have a clue they are losing their liberties and freedoms, and most don't even care, because all they can say is that Romney is no better, and nothing will change with him as president.....Geeze.

[TLRMADE]

[Guest ThePunisher]

What is Phil's last name?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's Dickie Weed's brother, Phil Weed.

[Guest ThePunisher]

That's Dickie Weed's brother, Phil Weed.

He looks like someone I went to high school with back in the '60's.

[TLRMADE]

What is Phil's last name?

Robertson...he's the duck commander

[Guest ThePunisher]

Robertson...he's the duck commander

Not the same Phil. I would vote for Phil over the commie if they were only two on the ballot.

[Glenn]

I definitely won't be voting for the commie. I don't imagine Romney will be very much better. I really don't think at this point there is much that can be done. Even if we some how elected the perfect conservative potus and congress (as if we could agree on what that would be) we are already over the edge of the cliff. Falling is not so bad but that landing is what hurts. If the Gov. tried to make the cuts that are necessary, all hell would break loose, so we will just keep falling and getting closer to that painful smash at the bottom.

Glenn

[Troutburger]

After Clinton's 2nd term, GWB's 2nd term and BHO's performance. It is my personal political philosophy never to vote for an incumbent.

Short terms and term limits for everyone including judges should be mandatory. No golden parachutes, no lifetime pensions. They need to get into office, serve and get out.

[RobertNashville]

I definitely won't be voting for the commie. I don't imagine Romney will be very much better. I really don't think at this point there is much that can be done. Even if we some how elected the perfect conservative potus and congress (as if we could agree on what that would be) we are already over the edge of the cliff. Falling is not so bad but that landing is what hurts. If the Gov. tried to make the cuts that are necessary, all hell would break loose, so we will just keep falling and getting closer to that painful smash at the bottom.

Glenn

We can step back from the abyss and change course in a planned, responsible way but it will hurt and I don't know that there are enough in Congress or the White House who have the guts to do it and take the heat for it. However, whether it's done in a controlled way or we go over the cliff, we WILL make the cuts because there simply won't be any other choice and that pain will be orders of magnitude worse than would be experienced if we try to do it in a rational way.

I think we'll know how it's going to happen by the end of Romney's first term or much sooner if Obama gets a second term. In either case, we all had better have our personal affairs (financial, and otherwise) in order - I see tough and dangerous times ahead with the only real question being "how tough and how dangerous".

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I agree with Glenn and Troutburger.

[mikegideon]

You may not see much difference in the tax

code for a couple years, anyway, except a

continuation of the current rate, but rates

should go down or be replaced with a flat

something or that Fair Tax. Nothing will

change enough to make a difference until

then. This Keynsian crap we have been using

seems to benefit the Fed and the major banks

but will kill us all in the end. You can't keep

spending something you don't have to stimulate

an economy. It has to be paid back, eventually.

Stalin considered Keynes another useful idiot

and he nailed that.

Same with regulations. A lot of them need to be

dropped completely. Our coal energy is being

killed by these rapists at the EPA for political

reasons only. Look at other industries and I'll

bet you would find a thousand regs that shouldn't

be there, to begin with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figure a good president can stop some of the the anti-business crap in pretty short order. Fire a bunch of folks, retask others. We need to get money flowing again before anything else. That won't happen as long as our priorities are building windmills and saving whales (and endangered bugs). We need a capitalist. Even a crappy one will help. I DON'T believe Romney is crappy in that area.