[Liberator]

I will consent that university economics and finance instructors are well informed, it's their job after all to be as up to date as possible with information about what they teach, but I will also consent that a great majority of University Profs in general, lean left.  To the point that, when challenged/corrected by a student who leans right, some will actively sabotage that student.

How can you not predict based on that system anyway?

US culture is a consumer culture, 350 million consumers, each spending hundreds of dollars a month on everthing from food to electronic gadgets and automobiles.

It's simple math.  I'll use myself as an example.  Even though I don't have a job right now(and I am looking believe me), my parents being great and helping me out.  I don't and haven't purchased anything but neccessities(certain basic foodstuffs and gasoline for my bomber) for almost a year and I spend easily $40 a week.

Now times that by 4 weeks in a month.

4 x 40 is 160.

This doesn't count my rent, which is $100 a month(trailer lot only) or the power bill which averages $35 a month.

Counting all that:

160 + 100 = 260
260 + 35   = 295

Let's round that up to $300 to make the math easier.  Now that's a very low monthly expense for most everybody.

Let's say the government gets 5% of that, as it's spent at the register remember.  That's $15.  Doesn't sound like a lot does it?  Now let's times that by 350 million people, cause even if that many aren't spending money it will get made up somewhere else in the system.

15 x 350,000,000 = 5,250,000,000

Understand, that's five billion two-hundred-fifty million dollars per month.  Times 12 months per year.

12 x 5,250,000,000 = 63,000,000,000

That's sixty-three billion dollars generated by survival spending only at a rate of 5% at the register.  Everybody spends at least that much a month, most quite a lot more.  That could be considered the baseline to base economic projections on.

Also, before you go on about how the average person couldn't afford the additional sales tax, remember that they will get their entire paycheck, not half of it.  If you earn $200 a week on wages or $2000 a week on salary, your paycheck would be for that amount it would be you're choice how, where and when to spend it.

[Night Hammer]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
*munches popcorn*

This is gonna be fun.

*sits down next to Blue Lion*

yup could be a long one:rolleyes:

[Bobboau]

it's realy realy realy easy to fix the numbers the way you want,
if you neglect to mention you are talking net, gross, or percent.

[Liberator]

Bob, there is no net using this system.  

If a dollar is spent, the government gets whatever it's tax percentage is, at the register.  You won't have 3/4 of the country going into anxiety attacks every april with this system.  The IRS as it exists now will cease to exist.

This is as absolutely fair to all concerned parties as it can possibly get.  If you spend money, you get taxed on that money.  If you don't spend money, you don't get taxed on it.

It's 3:20 am here, I'm going to bed.

[Zarax]

You are leaving untapped an huge amount of stuff...
Also, how do you tax services without having them evading taxes?
And how do you prevent a whole lotta people to simply buy and sell disregarding taxes?
Note that these aren't theories, but every day real life problems...
Also, you may notice that there are a lot of goods already under similar taxes, but the income generated by them is not nearly enough to cover expences...
Finally, lol@you for saying that most university professors leans left...
It may be true there but i'm in Milano, one of the most right winged cities in the whole Europe, and i tell you that teachers here leans deeply right...
That said, here goods (and services) are taxed up to 20%, but still this is not nearly enough to cover the needs, plus the fact that any time you tax a good you are automatically generating inflation, making the income somewhat less valuable...
It would also be nice if anyone uses real life examples instead of theories, as facts speaks louder than words, no matter how well crafted they are...

[Bobboau]

I was refering to the 1% paying 50% thing.

so your talking about replaceing income tax with a federal sales tax? I agree with this, the more you spend the more you get taxed, it will auto-balence to tax those who are more wealthy, especaly if some items are given a higher tax rate than others, an individuals second (+) car for example. and unweaselable.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I will consent that university economics and finance instructors are well informed, it's their job after all to be as up to date as possible with information about what they teach, but I will also consent that a great majority of University Profs in general, lean left.  To the point that, when challenged/corrected by a student who leans right, some will actively sabotage that student.

so....anyone who disagree with your political leanings-stroke-preferred policies does so not out of logic, but out of their own political leanings?

Hypocritical, perhaps?

[Rictor]

on a semi-related note, who here supports Tobin taxes (assuming they are even implementable, which would take a major initiative from somone like the WTO or the UN)..

[Zarax]

I did some math on the topic, basing myself on the Italian situation.
Italy has about one sixth of US population, and state expences are around $1300 billions, which is more or less the GNP.
Now, let's simplify things a bit and say that there are 40 millions of active spenders (or people with an income), maybe it's a little less but let's keep it simple.
Now, take $1.300.000.000.000 and divide it for 40.000.000, you obtain $32500 per year, wich means around $2700 per month.
Now, let's make another simplification and say that everyone spends around $1000 per month as average, and the average tax is around 10%.
Given that, you will obtain $100 per month for every tax payer.
That said, you miss $2600 per month for every tax payer...
Since you still need to get that money somehow in this system the only way to get more money would be to increase taxation...
The problem here is that you would have to tax everything at 2700% average (it's not a typo, just do the math), making most of the stuff quite pricey to say an euphemism...
That said, since people can pay only so much when they buy goods what will you obtain?
Massive evasion, Giffen behaviour on most basic goods (Giffen behaviour happens when a good price goes up it produces more demand instead of less than usual... I.E. if bread price goes up you will have to spend less on other stuff, and since bread is usually the cheapest one it means you're going to buy even more of it...) and what else on the economy, including a spectacular inflation...
Now, translate it to any other country and just change the numbers to fit with your one...
That kind of tax doesn't seem so fair to me, since it would almost double the price of anything but the most basic goods which hopefully would have a lower taxatation...
Mind you, i'm not against that kind of tax, but basing all or most of a country income on it is simply ridicolous...

[Rictor]

Are we talking about the same thing here (assuming you're responding to me, and not Lib's previous posts)

Tobin taxes only work on *international* capital transaction, and would not affect things on a national level. It would also contribute nothing to the national coffer, but rather raise money that would be spent on international problems such as AIDS, poverty and so forth. And I for one have no qualms with taxing (very, very slightly) currency speculators who only increase their own wealth but contribute nothing  that improves peoples lives in return (most corporations do produce something useful, but when you deal only with money, an abtraction, there is no "useful side-effect" of creating products which serve a purpose).

And with a minimum of 200-250 billion per year raised by these taxes, imagine how much good could be done with that money.

[Zarax]

Rictor, i was talking about basing a country taxes simply on goods, also called sales tax, and showing how it cannot be used to replace completely income taxes...

[aldo_14]

I was wondering, do any of these tax calculations/complaints account for the quantative value of what tax money is spent on?  For example, spending on the health services reduces absenteeism for companies, education improves job prospects and hence the persons average pay, etc.....

Oh, and isn't one the problems with sales-based taxation that it is completely non-discriminatory... i.e. some people may have trouble affording clothes, etc, as is and this system would cost them in a greater way than it would someone with a high income?

  How do you determine what a 'neccessary' item is (food and water being key examples), and what to tax?  

In other words, does it not punish the people who can afford the least, the most?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
And that will last until the first outcry that the USA isn't doing enough to stop human rights abuses and "ethnic cleansing"(it used to be called civil war).

Also, the US and her allies are engaged in a campaign, of which Iraq was a part don't forget, to eliminate Islamo-Fascist Terrorism.  The side effect of this is we have to also eliminate those that provide succor to this enemy.  As in any war there will be casualties, but the politicians need to stop using the conflicts to bolster their reelection hopes and let the military complete it's assigned task.

Not wanting to start another one of these debats, but you do realise that the Iraq war had completely no effect nor purpose in reducing terrorism, and that of the 2 terrorist groups in Iraq, one was anti-Saddam, and the other (an Iranian Marxism-Islamist group) signed a truce with the US and was thus effectively protected?

[Zarax]

Aldo, the non discriminatory nature of the tax is also one of the arguments used against it.
EU uses different levels of taxation, with essential goods as food taxed on around 4%, while luxury goods like computers goes to around 20%...

[Liberator]

You're all assuming that Federal spending would be unaffected.  

The biggest gripe I have with the US government is that they make a budget and completely ignore it, spending many billions of dollars over it.  The First Rule of Budgeting is that you don't spend over the budget.  Apparently, the Congress never took an economics class.

I'm not saying the out of control Federal spending would not be affected but it would require the Polis in Washington to stop pork barrel spending and fund what needs funding instead of their pet projects.

[Rictor]

You mean like Bush $200 BILLION pet project, Iraq?

[aldo_14]

"**** social services, a WAR will solve our problems!"

[Liberator]

You know Rictor, that's what I like about Leftists.  You don't actually think before you speak sometimes.

Afganistan, Iraq, as well as the next conflict and probably the ones after that are all, lock, stock and barrel, parts of the War on Terror.  It is not a separate entity from that War.  It's like taking the Battle of Normandy and saying that it's a separate conflict from WW2.  They are all parts of a greater whole.

We are fighting and dying to make sure that you dorks don't have to worry about getting blown to bits by Islamo-Fascist Terrorists and their brainwashed followers the next time you a dance club or a bar or something.  I'll kindly ask you to remember that.

They don't want to talk about why they don't like the West, they want to kill every last one of us that won't convert to Islam and submit to them.

[Ghostavo]

Iraq? War on Terror? What on Earth do your so called "Islamo-Fascist Terrorists" have to do with a country that was previously ruled by a secular dictator?

[Zarax]

 Err...
Liberator, can you please stop quoting Bush personal website and start using some thought of yours?
You know, propaganda doesn't bring anywhere...