I can’t think of a reason this wouldn’t be popular, it’s perfectly proportional and incentivizes saving and investing over spending
1 Like
See you say a VAT taxation is complicated. Yet almost all if not the entirety of Europe uses a VAT system for taxation and they have no issues. As long as it’s clearly defined I see no issue with a VAT system
Also a sales tax would fairly tax individuals from other countries while visiting.
Well call me crazy here but IMO should be no taxes at all. Not even VAT. Of course SS is a different story.
Ok taxes are used by govs ( talking worldwide here) to do what? Pay for roads
(by the way, 24 years I lived here and my road still gravel but the locals spend over $60,000.00 to have a building where they can just store some files and stuff money not well spent- I guess they just wanted to feel important)
and schools and so on, also we pay their salaries (by the way some are waaayyy exaggerated salaries for what their job is) so all can be easily replaced by an “invoicing” system where agencies know what the expenses are for all of it and cost of infrastructure maintenance and new projects then just calculate what each and every one would get charged for and send an invoice detailing what’s what so we can review it and pay it. I bet there would be no outrageous spending there.
At present because of the system we now have there is always a surplus of money going in that like any other human, the more you get the more you spend… Anyway this may not make any sense but I think it can be done
All taxes should be apparent to the consumer who ultimately pays the tax. Corporate taxes and the costs of their preparation are hidden taxes. Include those on business that are not incorporated as well. Politicians are adept at raising taxes on business in order to hide taxation from the general population. Wealth taxes, high income taxes etc have been tried in many nations and they all have failed to bring in projected revenue. Nobody wants to pay taxes and they find ways to work around them or at least reduce them. Some move to where money is treated better, then there are all kinds of loses not projected in the spreadsheet. The best evidence of this type is the migration from high tax states to low tax states. It is just human nature.
I spent a few years in a VAT country. Everyone had to keep all receipts all year. As an employee benefit the company accounting staff compiled the VAT paid out by each individual. That amount was needed to calculate the refund they got based on their income. It was a really time consuming ordeal each year. Maybe its different in other countries, but that’s the way it worked in Turkey.
This would also fall under said policy, supporting it through tariff revenue vs. income tax revenue…
The issue at hand IS STATES are supposed to send federal government money in times of need. The 16th amendment was DONE UNCONSTUTIONALLY AND ILLEGALY buy the powers at be IE the federal reserve. The states rejected it but THE federal government allowed it to pretend to be amended much like the 14-the 17th. ALL where NOT even legally amended. How dose one know this? lets read what makes an amendment a real amendment. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. IN the case of the 14th through the 17th all voided this important part of it. that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. and ignored the states rejecting the said amendments. Federal taxes are ILLEGAL and UNCONSTUTIONAL.
This is ONE of the correct ways the federal government is to raise funds on its own. The federal government was LIMMITED to external things such as war, peace. treaty negotiations and to prevent one state from profiting more then other states in deals with forging states like great Britain, Germany ,France, AND before you go saying them are countries and not states. WHY do all of them have a state department or department of state? The term “foreign state” in the context of 1776 refers to any State (country) outside the newly declared United States of America. The Plan of 1776, developed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, and Robert Morris, was a model set of articles for treaties that the United States would negotiate with foreign powers. This plan aimed to define the rights of neutral states, often referred to as freedom of the seas, and restrict the category of contraband to a carefully defined list of arms, munitions, and implements of war, excluding foodstuffs or naval stores. This was significant because it helped establish the United States’ diplomatic and economic stance with other nations during the American Revolution.
Agreed. And this is the way we had it before, until the Federal Reserve stepped into the picture and drained the American People of all of their wealth and purchasing power; and this is the way Trump wants to proceed. I am all for it as well.
Susan,
My intent was to start a discussion regarding the best way to get our out of control spending under control using practical tools that would not harm the poorest Americans. This is by no means a final suggestion. With that said, let me replying to your comments in order:
- DOGE is about to run into a meat grinder called Congress and their lobbyist campaign funding machine. Most of the waste goes to their buddies and they will not readily legislate it out of the budget. We will take whatever Musk and Ramaswamy can find but an 80% reduction is, in my opinion, not practical.
- I’m fine with a higher national sales tax. This taxes the underground cash economy and everyone pays. Mastercard and Visa could collect the tax using systems already in place. Easy to implement and effective.
- The financial transaction tax would be designed to slow down the computer-generated scalping that take place continually. If there is a cost to making these trades the scalpers are no longer profitable. Could lead to more long-term investment driven transactions.
- Corporate taxes are paid by the stakeholders. Some comes from shareholders (less profit), some from price increases and some from internal stakeholder through lower raises etc. We cannot really just “tax a corporation”. The government uses this as a cover for taxing individuals.
- Social security is insolvent and basically turned into a Ponzi scheme. We have already spent all the money that supposedly went into the “trust fund”. The entire SSA is broken and needs to be reimagined.
- The purpose of these proposals would be to prevent the type of runaway inflation you suggest and also shift the tax burden from those making under $200k per year to those with much more. Obviously, these should be indexed to prevent the inflationary scenario you describe.
I appreciate your comments and look forward to further discussions. I am convinced that if we do not make significant changes the inflationary scenario you describe will occur and the country will decline. Time to put forward viable solutions.
I understand that your intention is to start discussion on the topic; and I am merely adding to that discussion by bringing up the points that I see included in this area.
For example, I think we are way past the point of worrying about getting spending under control. This would have been ideal if brought up 25 years ago, but at this point, (even like you pointed out with SS being bankrupt and being a ponzi scheme) – it is too late. We are flat broke and the only thing keeping this ship afloat is the fact that wealth from other countries are being parked in this country because it is perhaps the “cleanest dirty shirt in the basket” so to speak. Our best approach at this point is to come to terms that none of this is going to be repaid, and that the U.S. dollar is artificially being propped up.Controlling spending of a currency that is worth nothing really will not accomplish anything. Percentages of ZERO are always ZERO. So suggesting tax rates based on ZERO is a bit pointless at this stage. It is like deciding to put the breaks on after the car has already cleared the edge of the cliff.
The solution is to move forward with a new system, I think; and this will not happen until the artificial supports are removed from the existing economic carcass. I strongly feel that this system will not last much longer – certainly not through 2025. All of the crumbling fundamentals point to this. Even the stock market technicals suggest impending collapse across multiple sectors. Precious metals and other commodities are set to explode against a collapsing dollar. The signs are everywhere and getting worse by the week. This economy is collapsing even as we speak. That said, when the dust settles, all of these suggestions about tweaking existing tax brackets is pointless. I think we should be starting the policy discussion from a point where the economy has already collapsed…not starting it from where we now stand and will soon never stand again.
All that aside, I will add to your pointed comments as well, hoping that we might all find some good ground upon which to build…
- DOGE is about to run into a meat grinder called Congress and their lobbyist campaign funding machine (Agreed, as long as the current system is propped up instead of being allowed to fall, which it shall do). Most of the waste goes to their buddies and they will not readily legislate it out of the budget). In today’s system, perhaps. We will take whatever Musk and Ramaswamy can find but an 80% reduction is, in my opinion, not practical. It is quite practical, and even necessary when starting over, from the ground up. A collapse has a funny way of turning everyone into penny-penching misers overnight. Yes, we can take what DOGE may offer but my initial point was not to count on DOGE but to get the point across to others here that we need to take an axe to everything we can and reduce the size of government to 20% of its normal size. Since government revenues and government spending are supposed to be on opposite sides of the same equation, it only stands to mathematical reason that the way out any debt (or bankruptcy) is to either decrease spending, increase taxes or tariffs, or some combination thereof. Your initial suggestions had no reference to lowering government costs through the elimination of existing functions – it only existed in the reduction of some taxation and increases elsewhere. I see this as “fine-tuning a broken system”, instead of re-imagining a new system, which is destined to fail in my opinion. I still firmly believe that in order to remove much of our unconstitutional taxation, we need to rely more on a combination of high tariffs + great reductions in government footprint and subsequent expenditures. THIS would be where I would start the policy discussion, if I were driving it.
- I’m fine with a higher national sales tax. This taxes the underground cash economy and everyone pays. Mastercard and Visa could collect the tax using systems already in place. Easy to implement and effective. Sounds logical. And only on new items, at perhaps around 17%.
- The financial transaction tax would be designed to slow down the computer-generated scalping that take place continually. If there is a cost to making these trades the scalpers are no longer profitable. I think the damage to the economy overall is not worth the benefit you gave. There are probably other ways to go after these scalpers without impacting every single American with every transaction in the country. It is a bit like killing a fly with a sledge hammer dont you think? Could lead to more long-term investment driven transactions. Most transactions are very short term and have nothing to do with investments. This is also a hypothetical and should probably be shown with specific evidence.
- Corporate taxes are paid by the stakeholders. Some comes from shareholders (less profit), some from price increases and some from internal stakeholder through lower raises etc. We cannot really just “tax a corporation”. The government uses this as a cover for taxing individuals. The large majority of corporate taxes are covered by product and service price increases, simply because it is the natural behavior of most companies and the quickest way to make up for the losses through accounting changes. The costs are passed on the the consumer in mostly every case, especially with small goods and services spread out over a large consumer base. That said, in my preference to increase tariffs (which would impact the company in the same way) I would certainly not place an additional penalty on the consumer for even higher product and service prices by combining both a tariff AND a corporate tax on the company, which may very well run it out of business and defeat the purpose.
- Social security is insolvent and basically turned into a Ponzi scheme. We have already spent all the money that supposedly went into the “trust fund”. The entire SSA is broken and needs to be reimagined. We both agree. And I would add that the entire government is in the same boat, but this fact is currently being hidden from the American People at this time.
- The purpose of these proposals would be to prevent the type of runaway inflation you suggest and also shift the tax burden from those making under $200k per year to those with much more. Obviously, these should be indexed to prevent the inflationary scenario you describe. Since 1913 we have lost 97% of the purchasing power of the dollar. The last 3% are already decreasing at an increasing rate, exponentially and logarithmicly – I would argue that 1% or less remain, which is why the rest of the world is joining BRICS and dumping the dollar (because they do not wish to give their work and resources away for free). That said, doing anything at this point, prior to collapse and a “re-imagined” mindset of the American People on the ultimate costs of government size and spending, shift numbers around is a bit like shifting chairs around on the titanic. We are already at a point of no return, and since we know that we will be starting over from scratch, we might be developing/suggesting policy fixes that take that into account: Like, for instance, NOT REPLACING 80% of government after the upcoming collapse. This is why I included the line about DOGE+Govt Spending…because this is where I believe we will soon be STARTING at. I hope this info sheds more light on my position regarding my previously supplied numbers and comments. If you spend months setting up tax percentage suggestions and the economy collapses tomorrow, then months are wasted. But if you set up a system of income that is independent on where we are now, like making all of the percentages based on each other, instead of being based on where they now are, that might prove more fruitful and useful even after a collapse. My two cents.
It would have to have a maximum of 14% otherwise they may keep increasing it and still pinch us like they have been!
1 Like