TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Taxing Non-Necessities

Taxing Non-Necessities

Sales tax: Most tax revenue should come from sales tax, especially from Junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, luxuries and any non-necessities. Higher taxes should be on anything that hurts people, or costs society or the environment in anyway.

It is the most fair, because the people that spend the most on themselves pay the most in taxes. If you don�t want to pay taxes, just don�t spend money.

Page 142, The Present (with religion) at www.thetruthcontest.com

I don't particularly want someone who's job it is to be a Grand Determinor to have undue influence on my life choices, but that's just me.

Maybe you'd like the Fair Tax?

spam

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't particularly want someone who's job it is to be a Grand Determinor to have undue influence on my life choices, but that's just me. Maybe you'd like the Fair Tax?

Oh no! I won't be able to avoid paying sales tax on big-ticket items by buying on-line instead of in-person!

The problem with that is that in a country of 300 milion people you're bound to have 300 million different opinions on just what qualifies as a necessity and/or luxury and what doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose The problem with that is that in a country of 300 milion people you're bound to have 300 million different opinions on just what qualifies as a necessity and/or luxury and what doesn't.

Good point.

As much as taxation is a VERY dull issue I think it's probably something that needs to be revisited. I know in Canada the taxes have been evolving for so long that the damn thing is a mess based on no theory what so ever. Prety much every year new tax laws are inacted, modified, and tinkered with until there is no vestage of what used to be based on economic arguments.

The only theory that's out there is the right wing 'always cut taxes' guess work. Without taxes there are no services. That means roads, water, power, garbage, you name it. I'd be interested to see the bills for a theoretical minum service provision regime, it's probably bigger than any 'no tax' chearleader can conceive of.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell The only theory that's out there is the right wing 'always cut taxes' guess work. Without taxes there are no services. That means roads, water, power, garbage, you name it. I'd be interested to see the bills for a theoretical minum service provision regime, it's probably bigger than any 'no tax' chearleader can conceive of.

I don't think it's so much an "always cut taxes" argument. I think it's more a belief that less taxation is better than greater taxation. That less government is better than more government. That lower taxes foster more savings and investment by the people who actually earn their money and want to live their lives as they best see fit as opposed to funding more and more social entitlement programs and government concentration of power. We all acknowledge that there are basic public goods that governments are expected to provide that must be funded with revenues that they collect in the form of taxes (how else does government bring in revenues?). It's a question of where to draw the line and most conservatives believe that 30-40% is far too much to be paying, especially considering all of the special interest programs and massive entitlement programs that we have in place today. It goes back to the old argument that I basically work for free until around May, at which point I finally get to keep the fruits of my own labor. I haven't seen anybody proposing anarchy, and I don't expect to either.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't think it's so much an "always cut taxes" argument. I think it's more a belief that less taxation is better than greater taxation. That less government is better than more government. That lower taxes foster more savings and investment by the people who actually earn their money and want to live their lives as they best see fit as opposed to funding more and more social entitlement programs and government concentration of power. We all acknowledge that there are basic public goods that governments are expected to provide that must be funded with revenues that they collect in the form of taxes (how else does government bring in revenues?). It's a question of where to draw the line and most conservatives believe that 30-40% is far too much to be paying, especially considering all of the special interest programs and massive entitlement programs that we have in place today. It goes back to the old argument that I basically work for free until around May, at which point I finally get to keep the fruits of my own labor. I haven't seen anybody proposing anarchy, and I don't expect to either.

But the states that tax 30 - 40%, or more, are consistently the most developed, the happiest, and the cleanest. They have lower crime and go to war less often then anyone else. Not to mention they didn't get struck with financial crises like the two biggest advocates of free markets and minimal taxation (US + UK). It's even possible that we are witnessing the collapse of these two countries in terms of world power and living standards. That's a pretty strong argument for spending on social programs.

The reason that states have social programs is because it is a way of dealing with complex problems that may not have other solutions. Higher rates of taxation mostly imply a society that is aware that the costs of the things that are required to make a nation a safe and decent place to live are more expensive than might be expected.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell But the states that tax 30 - 40%, or more, are consistently the most developed, the happiest, and the cleanest. They have lower crime and go to war less often then anyone else. Not to mention they didn't get struck with financial crises like the two biggest advocates of free markets and minimal taxation (US + UK). It's even possible that we are witnessing the collapse of these two countries in terms of world power and living standards. That's a pretty strong argument for spending on social programs.

What states? Where do you get your stats? You do remember that not only a few revolutions started due to oppression and higher taxes, don't you? Also, are you saying the ends justify the means (assuming anything you said is actually correct?)

quote:

The reason that states have social programs is because it is a way of dealing with complex problems that may not have other solutions. Higher rates of taxation mostly imply a society that is aware that the costs of the things that are required to make a nation a safe and decent place to live are more expensive than might be expected.

BS. It's a consolidation of power that creates greater and greater dependency on the state. Jesus, by your logic we should all simply have 100% marginal tax rates because we'll all be better off. To hell with independence, freedom, liberty, pursuing your own self interest and all of that bullshit that is the meaning of life. We should all be fucking ants in a fucking anthill.

Re: Taxing Non-Necessities

quote:

Originally posted by Jethro Tull Sales tax: Most tax revenue should come from sales tax, especially from Junk food, alcohol, cigarettes, luxuries and any non-necessities. Higher taxes should be on anything that hurts people, or costs society or the environment in anyway. It is the most fair, because the people that spend the most on themselves pay the most in taxes. If you don�t want to pay taxes, just don�t spend money. Page 142, The Present (with religion) at www.thetruthcontest.com

why is that most fair?

i think a taxing regime is fair if it doesn't tax businesses that create jobs, and instead relies more heavily on taxing individauls on their income. The corporate tax structure is stupid, in my opinion. Even though it doesn't help me if corporate taxes are eliminated, talk about a huge boon for domestic job creation! Right now the US federal government is taking 35% of the pre-tax profits from businesses. If the corporate tax rate were eliminated, imagine all the cash that could be funneled back into R&D, higher wages, increased hiring, and other corporate measures that would ultimiately lead to economic growth (and a large chunk of that amount would end up in the treasury's coffers anyway through slightly higher income taxes on individuals, although clearly diluted). Higher income taxes could be justified because businesses could pay higher wages (fyi, corporate taxes are the 3rd largest expense of major corporations). Individuals likely would be in no worse shape, and overall employment would certainly increase.

Re: Re: Taxing Non-Necessities

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Individuals likely would be in no worse shape, and overall employment would certainly increase.

Wages too, most likely. Which would only serve to increase government revenue all the more.

Re: Re: Re: Taxing Non-Necessities

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Wages too, most likely. Which would only serve to increase government revenue all the more.

yup - that was one of my main points. eliminating the 3rd largest expense would provide more employment at higher wages. Everyone can agree that is a good thing. corporate taxes are stupid because its a tax on income that should funnel down to individuals anyway. I don't buy into any of the justifications for taxing a legal fiction (i.e., a corporation). Tax those who own the corporation!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.