America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,006 comments
  • 1,484,136 views
I still think income tax should be abolished entirely. It makes no sense and the US originally functioned without it. Everyone should be taxed according to what it costs to protect their rights. Outside of that the government should be seeking to make contracts when beneficial. For example, government aid for a corporation may come with the requirement that the corporation does something for the country, be that keeping prices affordable or sharing some amount of profits for a given cause like education. Citizens should also be involved, as they should directly make contracts among themselves or with corporations that are enforced by the government.
 
The rich get richer, and the poor don't. Every other developed country has some form of VAT national sales tax, but a sales tax disproportionately affects working class people who need to spend all their income in order to live. The wealthy can invest their wealth and pay lower tax rates (if anything at all) on their capital gains. That's why the rich are getting richer. The very wealthy are able to move their money around and avoid tax. While it would be nice to think there's a simple system that would work, in practice it's a very complicated issue.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Sales tax instead of income tax does make more sense to me.
Click to expand...
A consumption tax still needs to be combined with other things. We already have luxury taxes and it just doesn't matter. The amount of wealth generated at the top is unfathomable to the point where dollars don't matter, they have no value, and frankly those people are probably burdened by the concept. They don't look at numbers and the probably don't even know how much their numbers person gets paid because it doesn't matter.

A flat rate consumption tax would be a total reversal in terms of buying power because it's not even possible for the market to offer most products at a price and thus taxable amount that effects these rich people in the same way it effects everybody else. If I pay $300 for a perfectly effective television, a television for a billionaire hundred-millionaire would have to cost $300,000. A billionaire would have to pay $3,000,000 for a TV to be proportional. That doesn't make sense and even if it did nobody would buy it because the $300 TV already does everything and lasts for years.

Money doesn't exist to these people because the vast majority of products don't have proportional costs. If I pay $5 for a loaf of bread they might pay $10 at a fancy bakery...but the proportional cost would be $5,000. I invite you to find me a $5,000 loaf of bread so that rich people can pay a proportional amount of sales/consumption tax.

The only way a sales tax makes sense in terms of proportionality is if the sales tax for a product is calculate based on means at the point of sale.
 
Last edited:
Keef
I invite you to find me a $5,000 loaf of bread so that rich people can pay a proportional amount of sales/consumption tax.
Click to expand...
They are paying their fair share on the $5 loaf of bread, because the bread costs $5. Whether or not that money registers to them doesn't really matter. There are expenses that barely register to me, should I be taxed for 90%?

If you're concerned about certain groups not contributing enough, that would fall partially to contracts to rectify. If businesses mess up like they did in 2008, they don't get saved for free. Government aid would require an agreement with the government and would only be paid out if that agreement was upheld. Part of said agreement could be funding for government programs.
 
Keef
A consumption tax still needs to be combined with other things. We already have luxury taxes and it just doesn't matter. The amount of wealth generated at the top is unfathomable to the point where dollars don't matter, they have no value, and frankly those people are probably burdened by the concept. They don't look at numbers and the probably don't even know how much their numbers person gets paid because it doesn't matter.

A flat rate consumption tax would be a total reversal in terms of buying power because it's not even possible for the market to offer most products at a price and thus taxable amount that effects these rich people in the same way it effects everybody else. If I pay $300 for a perfectly effective television, a television for a billionaire hundred-millionaire would have to cost $300,000. A billionaire would have to pay $3,000,000 for a TV to be proportional. That doesn't make sense and even if it did nobody would buy it because the $300 TV already does everything and lasts for years.

Money doesn't exist to these people because the vast majority of products don't have proportional costs. If I pay $5 for a loaf of bread they might pay $10 at a fancy bakery...but the proportional cost would be $5,000. I invite you to find me a $5,000 loaf of bread so that rich people can pay a proportional amount of sales/consumption tax.

The only way a sales tax makes sense in terms of proportionality is if the sales tax for a product is calculate based on means at the point of sale.
Click to expand...
I agree that money for everyday things doesn't really matter to people once they get into the many millions of dollars. They shift their focus to higher priced items that can still sting, like their gulfstream or yacht.

Income tax is not really proportional either. Bezos and Elon are not paying huge income tax numbers.

So let's say that Bezos or Elon avoid paying massive income tax by housing their compensation in the form of stock. And let's also say that they skirt paying any kind of sales tax by going to a tax advantaged state. So they make millions, and they spend millions, and the federal government doesn't see much of it if anything at all.

If there were a national sales tax, every time Bezos went to buy a $65M jet he would have to pay, what... 5%? 10%? That's maybe 6.5 million in tax. And he can't exactly go out of the country to buy the jet unless he keeps the jet out of the country. Importing/Customs ends up regulating how the jet gets treated when it's brought into the country.

Sure, there's probably some kind of way to set up some kind of corporation to hide the jet purchase and somehow technically operate it within the US, but it seems like a solvable issue. Probably it's harder to solve the problem of buying a yacht outside of the country and then never technically bringing it into US waters.

I wonder how real estate sales get treated in countries with a national sales tax.
 
Danoff
Sales tax instead of income tax does make more sense to me.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't. I live in Washington State which has no state income tax but it does have sales tax. It's the most regressive tax system in the nation. Regular people pay 18% of their income on taxes. The wealthy only pay an average of 3%. But no one has the stomach to fix it, because people wrongly believe that switching to a state income tax will cost them more.

crosscut.com

Washington state's tax system is worsening income inequality

States without income tax lean on inequitable sales and consumption revenues.
crosscut.com crosscut.com
 
Populuxe
It shouldn't. I live in Washington State which has no state income tax but it does have sales tax. It's the most regressive tax system in the nation. Regular people pay 18% of their income on taxes. The wealthy only pay an average of 3%. But no one has the stomach to fix it, because people wrongly believe that switching to a state income tax will cost them more.

crosscut.com

Washington state's tax system is worsening income inequality

States without income tax lean on inequitable sales and consumption revenues.
crosscut.com crosscut.com
Click to expand...

It's easier to avoid state taxes than a national tax. I'm not saying it's impossible to use tax avoidance strategies, but I'm familiar how some of the rich people in California used Nevada to avoid California sales tax and that kind of thing is much harder when talking about the US border.

That being said, I would also suggest a flat credit be offered to everyone to offset sales tax up to a point. So, for example, if someone who makes 50k pays on average 18% of their income on sales tax, the flat credit could be something like 10k to more than offset the sales tax they pay. That would end up being an effective negative tax rate to that person. Meanwhile, someone who makes $1M/year pays 20k in taxes even after their 10k credit (going by your 3% number).

I should point out that "on taxes" most likely includes a tax which is neither income nor sales, but property tax. So I'm guessing that the 18% is a bit misleading on that, especially considering that no place (at least that I could find quickly) has an 18% sales tax in washington.
 
Last edited:
Populuxe
Regular people pay 18% of their income on taxes. The wealthy only pay an average of 3%.
Click to expand...
Does that really matter though, at all? The point of having more money is to be better off. Rather than worry about how much income one loses to taxes wouldn't it be better focus on weather people have enough money meet their needs or to reach a certain standard of living?. If we could make sure that regular people could afford a house a car even with only moderate income, should anyone care that those with more money would be taking home proportionately more?
 
Danoff
I agree that money for everyday things doesn't really matter to people once they get into the many millions of dollars. They shift their focus to higher priced items that can still sting, like their gulfstream or yacht.

Income tax is not really proportional either. Bezos and Elon are not paying huge income tax numbers.

So let's say that Bezos or Elon avoid paying massive income tax by housing their compensation in the form of stock. And let's also say that they skirt paying any kind of sales tax by going to a tax advantaged state. So they make millions, and they spend millions, and the federal government doesn't see much of it if anything at all.

If there were a national sales tax, every time Bezos went to buy a $65M jet he would have to pay, what... 5%? 10%? That's maybe 6.5 million in tax. And he can't exactly go out of the country to buy the jet unless he keeps the jet out of the country. Importing/Customs ends up regulating how the jet gets treated when it's brought into the country.

Sure, there's probably some kind of way to set up some kind of corporation to hide the jet purchase and somehow technically operate it within the US, but it seems like a solvable issue. Probably it's harder to solve the problem of buying a yacht outside of the country and then never technically bringing it into US waters.

I wonder how real estate sales get treated in countries with a national sales tax.
Click to expand...
Yes - there are all kinds of ways for the ultra rich like Bezos to avoid paying taxes ... legally. You should realize that in Europe the VAT (national sales tax) is generally around 20% and is as high as 25% (in Sweden) and 27% (in Hungary). That's a far cry from 5 or 10%. But the point is that Bezos doesn't spend much of his wealth on buying personal stuff ... he doesn't have to, and in fact, would find it hard to spend much of his wealth on taxable purchases. That's really the point: the average person spends most of what they earn in order to live. The ultra wealthy don't - they invest their money and have various strategies for minimizing its exposure to taxation.

There's a huge gulf that separates the working poor and lower middle classes from the very wealthy & ultra wealthy ... even from the upper middle classes - people earning $400,000 plus a year. It's the difference between living pay-check-to-pay-check and having a large amount of disposable income.

In Canada there is no sales tax on resale homes, but there is sales tax on new builds (with various exemptions). There are still taxes due however, like land transfer tax. The sale of your principal residence is capital gains tax free, but there is no tax deductibility for interest payments on your mortgage.

Bottom line: in many countries there are tax codes intended to assist low - moderate income individuals, but they are still not sufficient to balance the tremendous advantages enjoyed by the wealthy.
 
Biggles
Yes - there are all kinds of ways for the ultra rich like Bezos to avoid paying taxes ... legally. You should realize that in Europe the VAT (national sales tax) is generally around 20% and is as high as 25% (in Sweden) and 27% (in Hungary). That's a far cry from 5 or 10%. But the point is that Bezos doesn't spend much of his wealth on buying personal stuff ... he doesn't have to, and in fact, would find it hard to spend much of his wealth on taxable purchases. That's really the point: the average person spends most of what they earn in order to live. The ultra wealthy don't - they invest their money and have various strategies for minimizing its exposure to taxation.

There's a huge gulf that separates the working poor and lower middle classes from the very wealthy & ultra wealthy ... even from the upper middle classes - people earning $400,000 plus a year. It's the difference between living pay-check-to-pay-check and having a large amount of disposable income.

In Canada there is no sales tax on resale homes, but there is sales tax on new builds (with various exemptions). There are still taxes due however, like land transfer tax. The sale of your principal residence is capital gains tax free, but there is no tax deductibility for interest payments on your mortgage.

Bottom line: in many countries there are tax codes intended to assist low - moderate income individuals, but they are still not sufficient to balance the tremendous advantages enjoyed by the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Yea I think it's worth acknowledging that it's not that easy to tax the ultra wealthy.

Bezos buys stuff. He buys houses and yachts and planes and throws parties and all kinds of stuff like that. It's not the majority of his wealth, for sure, but it's still a lot - a lot more than you or me, and it can represent a lot more tax than he pays now.
 
Last edited:
Something I read last night said part of what contributed to this situation was due to another roll back done by you-know-who.
 
What the hell is Silicon Valley Bank? Never heard of it.

Edit: Apparently their portfolio was chock full of crypto customers. Ah, so that's why I've never heard of SVB. It's fake.
 
Last edited:
Keef
What the hell is Silicon Valley Bank? Never heard of it.

Edit: Apparently their portfolio was chock full of crypto customers. Ah, so that's why I've never heard of SVB. It's fake.
Click to expand...
Same with Signature Bank, which I HAD heard of and interviewed with but was not given a job.
 
Keef
What the hell is Silicon Valley Bank? Never heard of it.

Edit: Apparently their portfolio was chock full of crypto customers. Ah, so that's why I've never heard of SVB. It's fake.
Click to expand...
HSBC have bought out the UK arm of SVB. Apparently to ensure certain businesses aren’t affected.

ETSY use them for some transactions too, they said it maybe slow to process some payments.
 
TexRex
So they're not worried the woke will make them go broke?
Click to expand...
Might be more of a "stifling the competition" type transaction. I gotta imagine that this crypto thing has been a real pain in the ass for banks. Did old-money types ever really think that was going to be the future? All the crypto drama lately suggests to me that it was never anything more than gambling, a lot like the lottery.
 
Last edited:
Keef
All the crypto drama lately suggests to me that it was never anything more than gambling, a lot like the lottery.
Click to expand...
Crypto is more like the stock market, if the stock market had absolutely no regulations, safety checks or security measures. Also if it was made up of 99% day traders who had minimal knowledge of how it really worked but still felt they were smart enough to plow all their money into it, and 1% people who knew exactly what they were doing and how to exploit the other 99% to their advantage.

As I've said before, I don't feel like cryptocurrency was designed to be a Ponzi scheme from the outset, but the way most exchanges operated, it was certainly turned into one once it took off.
 
Apparently we can add more lies to George Santos' resume as he is applying to run for re-election after stating he wouldn't. Anyone in that district still planning to vote for him when he will receive no support from the state Republicans gets no sympathy if any policies he enacts hurts his constituents.
 
Last edited:
www.businessinsider.com

'It's time': Trump calls on supporters to 'protest' and 'take our nation back' in an ominous echo of January 6 riot

Donald Trump's call to action echoed his words preceding the deadly Capitol riot. But there's no proof of his claim he's about to be arrested.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Turns out January 6th guy will attempt the same thing a second time if you haven't incarcerated him for the first time. The idea that we have to leave this guy alone to let our nation heal is absurd. We have to prosecute him so that our nation can heal.
 
Danoff
www.businessinsider.com

'It's time': Trump calls on supporters to 'protest' and 'take our nation back' in an ominous echo of January 6 riot

Donald Trump's call to action echoed his words preceding the deadly Capitol riot. But there's no proof of his claim he's about to be arrested.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Turns out January 6th guy will attempt the same thing a second time if you haven't incarcerated him for the first time. The idea that we have to leave this guy alone to let our nation heal is absurd. We have to prosecute him so that our nation can heal.
Click to expand...
Might be harder for Trump to say he didn't incite protestors due to the Truth social posts.
 
www.nytimes.com

Obamacare Keeps Winning

Its North Carolina victory is a sign of larger changes.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Even with its flaws — including its often complicated process for signing up for insurance — the law has achieved many of its aims. The number of Americans without health insurance has plummeted. In states that have refused the Medicaid expansion, by contrast, rural hospitals are struggling even more than elsewhere because they do not receive the law’s subsidies for care.

Greenwood Leflore Hospital — in the Mississippi Delta — is an example. It recently closed its intensive-care unit and maternity ward, as our colleague Sharon LaFraniere has reported. Nationwide, states that did not quickly accept Medicaid expansion have accounted for almost three-quarters of rural hospital closures between 2010 and 2021, according to the American Hospital Association.
Click to expand...
 

Latest Posts

Back