No matter what your viewpoint on taxing the rich, there's some good information here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/opinion/mccaffery-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A consumption tax (tax on spending) makes sense on so many levels. Not only do you hit up the rich when they spend their money, you hit up the drug dealers who earn their money outside the system. You also hit up people who work for cash under the table, tips, etc. To make it really fair, though, you'd tax at something like 22% of every good or service sold and refund to every man, woman, and child $4K at tax time. The $4K would cover the minimal food/medicine/education expenses and provide negative income tax for the reasons we have these things with the current tax code. The result would be about 20% of GDP for govt. to spend. Eliminate Social Security as we know it and pay it out of the 20% revenue. Eliminate medicare as we know it and pay for it out of the 20% revenue. And yeah, that's $16K refund for a family of 4, and a $28K refund for Mitt Romney (well, his kids that are grown up get their $4K instead of him). So what? $28K to Romney pales in comparison to the 22% of his spending as taxation. He may not need the $28K, but the scheme is perfectly fair - it gives nobody special treatment, no breaks for the rich or corporations, etc. The refund is progressive and the tax is regressive, but they balance each other out nicely.
The number I've seen is 23%, but we're close enough. On a theoretical level, I'm in favor of it, but there are two huge problems with the consumption tax. First, it encourages a black market. Second, it would massively lower demand for big ticket items for lower-middle class families.
$16K for a family of 4 buys a lot of flat screen TVs each year. Or a hefty down payment on a car. Or 5% down on a $320K house.
on second thought, what would scuttle it would be attack adds on the mom with 13 kids getting a 56k check at the end of every year, maybe cap it at 16k or something
a sex tax wouldnt really affect you, unless they somehow tax the hand jive, so you should be fine with that one
Dude you spend more time here than I do, so i'm not sure about you sometimes. You seem like a has-been junkie. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I love drugs but let's not get too cocky. ;]
The 9 9 9 post was a joke. It's not like the tax plan I suggested, and have been suggesting on forums, Usenet, etc., since the 1980s. The plan I suggest was inspired by the writing of this guy: http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-world-and-its-crisis-according-to-pj-20090422-afbz.html Basically, the idea to fix govt. is to eliminate the 140+ programs aimed at helping the poor and just write the poor a check big enough so they're not poor anymore. It'd save enormous sums of money and a whole lot of hassle. And the actual stated goal (poor aren't poor anymore) is achieved. I applied that kind of thinking to taxes.
With how much the Obamas and the Romneys spend each year, they are definitely not for this. We are talking about leaders of our country who are used to paying 14-20% while they are making millions of dollars. Why would they want to do something like this?
