Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

GOP propose 30% national sales tax


Portre

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

50%?? You’d have 99% of rich folks buying most of the things they buy directly from foreign countries. 

That is an obstacle I had not thought of.    

The guy buying the Corvette could buy it in Canada and save from having to pay the $25,000 tax on it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Myles said:

That is an obstacle I had not thought of.    

The guy buying the Corvette could buy it in Canada and save from having to pay the $25,000 tax on it.  

Yeah you can’t make it unreasonable where people feel they need to go out of their way like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Why wouldn't they do that at 1% if they had the ability? One percent of a million dollars is $10,000.00 after all.  It's taking advantage of even the small things that takes one over their peers, financially.

Those of us who have traveled have seen the "Duty Free" stores.  Their whole gimmick is selling stuff tax free.

The 30% sales tax could help out places like Mexico and Canada where US citizens can easily travel and buy things at a discount.

I know Brazilians do a shopping migration over to Paraguay to buy electronics.  Smuggling is just a way of life at Friendship Bridge - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

It was funny when I went.  Brazilians have a maximum they could buy and bring over back home.  But the border guard didn't ask me or check through the stuff I bought.  My wife and in-laws asked why and the border guards shrugged and said, "He's American, he's allowed to bring in whatever he wants because the law applies to Brazilians only...."

Well I think if they could keep the tax reasonable, and those people aren’t paying an income tax, they will be ok with paying the tax. I know my income would go up substantially. 
 

No need to risk buying things from other countries. You might not get what you paid for, and there would be no way to hold anyone accountable. No getting your items seized at customs ect. 
 

At 50% though, Those risks will start to look more worth taking. Especially as some times goes by, and some of these foreign companies begin to become reputable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

50%?? You’d have 99% of rich folks buying most of the things they buy directly from foreign countries. 

So? Charge an individual based 50% import fee, based on the same system of cards. Then it would be MORE expensive to bring it in, and they'd be forced to buy local/domestic. They skip the system, it's then considered Smuggling and they go to the Federal Poky. Or better yet, pay an even MORE exorbitant fee. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Myles said:

That is an obstacle I had not thought of.    

The guy buying the Corvette could buy it in Canada and save from having to pay the $25,000 tax on it.  

He'd still have to register it in the US, and because it would be new, the previous registration would be in Canada. So then the DMV would ask, "Did you pay the import fee?". The fee, of course being based on the guys income/wealth, and thus he's not any better off then buying locally.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Well I think if they could keep the tax reasonable, and those people aren’t paying an income tax, they will be ok with paying the tax. I know my income would go up substantially. 

You are too good. I think there are a lot of people who would try hard to find a way even to avoid 1%.

If everybody's incomes go up substantially, does that smack of a free lunch?  How do the bills get paid, how does the deficit get reduced?  Spend less?  Cut social security, cut Medicaid, cut defense spending those are the big ones.  All of the little piddly stuff that is waste to some and pork projects to others is not enough to make a dent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Left wants to raise taxes to 70% or 80% (and they are on their way), I'd think that 30% across the board with no loopholes isn't going to help the Marxists.  That is media spin.  As it is now, 30% flat rate is better than what we have now.  I would prefer something like 25%, but the main selling point is to do away with the current tax code and replace it with something much simpler that will keep government spending within our means.  Gee, what a novel idea.  You do that with having optimally minimal taxes.  30% is the ceiling of the range and this is always negotiable within reason.  No adding of that 8%+ to the new budget.  When the Dems push us into hyperinflation, it's not going to be difficult for the people to desire a simpler tax code.  The media will do everything to put a negative light on a new tax code and make it sound that all our problems are because of the Republicans to win the minds and souls of the people.  I have to believe that at some point, the people will no longer be fooled.  The Marxists are shooting for hyperinflation in order to cause anarchy and take over and replace the Constitution with some Marxist ideology.  It’s not going to happen here.  Too many Americans still have liberty and freedom instilled in their being, but I think we will go through a tribulation until about 2030 and then freedom and liberty will reign. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Yeah you can’t make it unreasonable where people feel they need to go out of their way like that. 

People want to save a nickel whether they have a few or many.  How much money do people save buying clothes shoes and household goods in big box stores that are made in China or Southeast Asia?  Sure seems like small businesses and American manufacturing has been gutted by the desire to save $5 bucks on a $50 dollar pair of sneakers or a dollar on a $7 T-shirt.  

Dampening effect?  If the tax is a one time new product only tax, what does that do to the new market in durable goods like cars, washing machines etc. Fewer people are going to buy new.  Won't that have an effect on manufacturing and jobs, and the economy?

Tax revenue:  A successful executive with a family of 4 works hard to earn his $1.5  million dollar salary.   Median income family of 4 maybe $70k a year for arguments sake, so the executive earns as much as 20 median families. No argument about fairness, just money.

How much do the 20 families of 4 spend on groceries a week?  $100 would be cheap.  How much does the executive spend on groceries, $2,000, probably less.

How much do the 20 families spend on clothes, shoes, school supplies, possible day care, phones, internet, maybe a computer or X-Box?  Does the executive spend 20x as much on any of these items?  

I do not believe it to be so.  That is why I think this sort of tax would not produce sufficient revenue and as a side effect would cause the economy to shrink.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

You are too good. I think there are a lot of people who would try hard to find a way even to avoid 1%.

There will always be those that do.  But do we need 87k agents to go after them?  Why not just tie public assistance to that.  If they don’t pay taxes then they don’t get public assistance.  But this is not a permanent solution.  It’s not even a good idea.  What needs to happen is to change the culture of being paid not to work.  Unemployment insurance needs to take on a different form.  And a new culture that instills the benefit of working.  That will take the taking back of academia and media from the Marxists.  Can that even be done?  It will happen.  The question is how?  How much blood will be shed before it is accomplished?

 

Quote

If everybody's incomes go up substantially, does that smack of a free lunch? 

Not at all.  The whole point would be for the individual to be able to support themselves and family.  How is that a free lunch?

 

Quote

How do the bills get paid, how does the deficit get reduced?  Spend less? 

It’s known as fiscal responsibility.  It’s know as not spending more than is taken in.  It’s called staying within the budget.  Lowering taxes will encourage more business to start and that will bring in more revenue.  More people will become prosperous and self-sufficient and less of a burden to the government.

 

Spend less by getting back to the original meaning in the Preamble and the Five Charges.  Namely: Establish Justice, Insure domestic Tranquility, Provide for the common defense, Promote the General Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty.  These are the only things that the government is responsible for.  Notice that nowhere does it say to control and enslave the people and take their liberty and freedom in order for the state to take care of them.  We could go into a separate post to talk about what the Five Charges mean, but I will only note that to Secure the Blessings of Liberty has no room in corruption or Marxism.  Until recently, these had been separate opponents.  General Welfare does not mean public assistance.  GW is to support things that everyone uses.  That would be things like infrastructure (inanimate objects).  The GW is one of the most abused clauses in the Constitution.  We would need to shore up the weaknesses that the Left have exposed in the Constitution over the years such as this.

 

Quote

Cut social security, cut Medicaid, cut defense spending those are the big ones. 

Only one of those should be a “big one”.  It is only logical that social security and medicaid are cut.  But the thing is, as long as someone is vested in these programs, the government is obligated.  These programs need to be replaced with something better.  Something that invests back into the nation.  Something that is reflective of a nation moving into the future, not reeling into Marxism.  SS needs to die when there is no one paying into it or receiving anything from it.

 

Quote

All of the little piddly stuff that is waste to some and pork projects to others is not enough to make a dent.

Stop printing money.  Stop the Green New Deal.  Stop ESG.  Stop paying people to not work.  Stop the war on energy.  Close the border.  Do these things and you could probably save more than a trillion of wasteful spending.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Lowering taxes will encourage more business to start and that will bring in more revenue. 

 That is the free lunch part I referred to.  There are no free lunches.  For corporations and the elite, it is a gift from Heaven.  They will be paying less.   It will be middle class consumers that shoulder that corporate burden.  If corporations pay no tax then less money will be taken in.   Assuming the government does as we want and stays within budget. then if less federal taxes are collected fewer services are provided. I don't think the tax bill will go down for middle class citizens, we will be paying the corporate share of the defense budget, but services will diminish. 

Self interest and supply and demand are pretty basic to capitalism.  We are a consumer society, 60% of our economy is driven by consumers. If everything is more expensive, people will buy less not more, businesses will shut down not open up. 

Ethically it is great that everybody is personally responsible. I believe in that, I have tried to live it.  I never drew a single day of unemployment in  45 years of working. That is the way it works in most of Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, few services and no social safety net. I am sure the poor are very self reliant and morally upstanding, but their societies are plagued by elite corruption and poor economies.  I prefer that not be our model, but maybe that would be paradise to some.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

He'd still have to register it in the US, and because it would be new, the previous registration would be in Canada. So then the DMV would ask, "Did you pay the import fee?". The fee, of course being based on the guys income/wealth, and thus he's not any better off then buying locally.

Doesn't really work with Yachts and private Jets, though.

Also, doesn't sound as much fun if you're retired and drawing a pension.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like it for some reasons.  People who are paid "under the table" would still pay their fair share of taxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2023 at 1:07 AM, Tiggs said:

Doesn't really work with Yachts and private Jets, though.

Also, doesn't sound as much fun if you're retired and drawing a pension.

It would depend on your income. Taxable income, I should say.

If someone is living on Social Security, and that is taxable, that would need to be taken up with the Congress to fix.

Yachts, that are registered out of the country, with an owner living in the country, and kept in the US, would be subject to a tax, or just return it to the registered country twice a year. Make it a pain to bypass the tax, and they'll simply pay it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 2:44 PM, RavenHawk said:

If the Left wants to raise taxes to 70% or 80%

 

I bet you don't care to cite that source now, would you?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It would depend on your income. Taxable income, I should say.

If someone is living on Social Security, and that is taxable, that would need to be taken up with the Congress to fix.

It is taxable. Just not 30% taxable across the board, usually - and if you've reached the pension stage, then it's a little late to start planning around it.
 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yachts, that are registered out of the country, with an owner living in the country, and kept in the US, would be subject to a tax, or just return it to the registered country twice a year. Make it a pain to bypass the tax, and they'll simply pay it. 

I hear that ownership can be masked by corporate veils, and that yachts and jets are regularly kept outside of the US.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tiggs said:

It is taxable. Just not 30% taxable across the board, usually - and if you've reached the pension stage, then it's a little late to start planning around it.

I'd say using my system, that it would depend. If a person owns businesses, and makes a million dollars a year, just by ownership, or if they make millions a year in stocks/funds.... Then I'd tax them higher then 50% on their SSI. If the SSI is all they have, it would be 10%, or 0%.

It would be a sliding, income based, scale. 

Quote

I hear that ownership can be masked by corporate veils, and that yachts and jets are regularly kept outside of the US.

I suspect that's true. And if the owners want to keep them in another nation, I believe that simply means they've limited access to them. Just as if they bought foreign properties. Being rich will always have advantages.

If the rich person wants their jet or yacht to be local, they'd end up paying for the convience.

Still, this is just me spitballing with minutes of thought put into it. A system that works should be possible with thousands of experts and legislators working on it to be fair. But, for whatever reason, that will likely not happen. Our current system will remain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd say using my system, that it would depend. If a person owns businesses, and makes a million dollars a year, just by ownership, or if they make millions a year in stocks/funds.... Then I'd tax them higher then 50% on their SSI. If the SSI is all they have, it would be 10%, or 0%.

It would be a sliding, income based, scale. 

I suspect that's true. And if the owners want to keep them in another nation, I believe that simply means they've limited access to them. Just as if they bought foreign properties. Being rich will always have advantages.

If the rich person wants their jet or yacht to be local, they'd end up paying for the convience.

Still, this is just me spitballing with minutes of thought put into it. A system that works should be possible with thousands of experts and legislators working on it to be fair. But, for whatever reason, that will likely not happen. Our current system will remain.

Unfortunately I think you are right.   Current politicians are not in it to do the right things.   It is all about towing the party line and causing more division.   It starts with biden but he won't change.  Division is what he does best.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd say using my system, that it would depend. If a person owns businesses, and makes a million dollars a year, just by ownership, or if they make millions a year in stocks/funds.... Then I'd tax them higher then 50% on their SSI. If the SSI is all they have, it would be 10%, or 0%.

It would be a sliding, income based, scale. 

Taxation on a sliding income-based scale is pretty much how it currently works. A 30% national sales tax, however, would apply to every purchase they make, unless there was some sort of discount for pensioners, which would then need to be applied on all purchases, everywhere.

Issue with a pensioner's discount that large is that everyone would just get their gran to buy everything for them.

Kind of a tricky one to fix, I think, without the government doing some sort of handout to retirees based on their income to compensate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2023 at 12:47 PM, Tatetopa said:

Does that 30% apply to yachts, private jets, golden toilets, and diamond bling, or just to hamburger, oatmeal, eggs, and school supplies?  A quick look will tell you who Republicans serve.

No...a quick look doesn't tell you squat!  What we all need is to step back and take a deep, thoughtful, meaningful,   l  o  n  g   look at who Republicans serve.

Since, I have already done that, I'll just give you the nutshell version...The Republicans serve themselves and their brothers in arms...the Democrats.

And the Democrats serve themselves and their brothers in arms the Republicans.

It's like trying to decide which arm is going to hurt you the least...the Left or the Right...when in reality both arms are swinging in unison to knock you out every single moment of every single day.  The word of the day boys and girls is:  

ruse
/ro͞oz/
 
noun
noun: ruse; plural noun: ruses
  1. an action intended to deceive someone; a trick.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2023 at 12:14 PM, F3SS said:

It's usually just about a lack of awareness and education in financial literacy. I'm in a similar situation as you but I can use hindsight and the ignoring of advice earlier in life to trace my steps to where I am now. It's all about the choices we make in life including to have expensive ass kids. 

To be more specific, I'd say that it's 'partly' about the choices we make, there are definitely other factors.

On 1/22/2023 at 12:14 PM, F3SS said:

Two people making the same money for 20 years can end up in wildly different places financially because of the choices they made.

Agreed, but the thing that I think is more relevant is that two people making the same money (adjusted for inflation) in different time periods can end up in different places.  There is graph after graph that shows over time how richer people have gotten richer and the middle-lower classes have not over the last few/several decades (maybe 'forever' is the right term).  There are countless stories of people today whose parents (like mine) with one income were able to have a house, feed their kids, take a vacation, and maybe even save a little.  From what I've been able to tell that is further out of reach for people today, more people I believe than ever work full time or more and can't afford that basic lifestyle.

As long as we let 'our leaders' waste time on distractions like this sales tax proposal, that will never pass Congress, along with all the culture war junk that is comparatively unimportant, nothing will change which is exactly how they like it.  Only the clueless and privileged would say that living paycheck-to-paycheck is 'dumb', but it is dumb on all of our parts to not do something about it.  Raise taxes on rich people and corporations and lower it for others; it is dumb for the lower/middle-class to not vote for their own self-interest when the rich and corporations are already doing that for themselves.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Taxation on a sliding income-based scale is pretty much how it currently works. A 30% national sales tax, however, would apply to every purchase they make, unless there was some sort of discount for pensioners, which would then need to be applied on all purchases, everywhere.

Issue with a pensioner's discount that large is that everyone would just get their gran to buy everything for them.

Kind of a tricky one to fix, I think, without the government doing some sort of handout to retirees based on their income to compensate.

My initial suggestion was that everyone had a "tax card" that they'd swipe at every purchase. Online purchase would require typing in the number code.

The card would be specific to each tax payer, and they'd pay tax based on the last year. Obviously people could file for exceptions, since people are hired/fired all the time.

Retired people would be no different. But those in the poverty category would pay little or none.

I think the much bigger trick would be how does the Federal Government, who collects ALL the taxes, hand it out fairly to the states and local municipalities.

Some states tax citizens a lot more then others. Would these states get a bigger percentage over other states. Such as between Nevada and California. Where moatly only gambling pays the taxes in Nevada, but California taxes just about everything. 

Also would big budget states then have to cut many things? And not have any choice?

Nope, I think this tax idea won't work. The taxes could be collected. Numerous ways to do that. But distribution would be a nightmare. Every state would sue the FedGov. Some because not getting enough, and some because others are spending more then a even share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fairness and a level playing field contribute to personal responsibility, then get rid of all taxes and replace them with a 100% inheritance tax.  Then every individual has to work hard to make it on their own. That should be a character development paradise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

If fairness and a level playing field contribute to personal responsibility, then get rid of all taxes and replace them with a 100% inheritance tax.  Then every individual has to work hard to make it on their own. That should be a character development paradise.

It would need to include "gifts" as well, or the Uber rich would just gift stuff before they die.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It would need to include "gifts" as well, or the Uber rich would just gift stuff before they die.

 

Ah, getting rid of inheritance and gift tax was in there: 

SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift taxes) is repealed.

Edit to add: In the 30% tax cut proposal that is.  Not the theoretical 100% inheritance tax.

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.