Missing large

mgl179 Free

Recent Comments

  1. 3 days ago on Wizard of Id

    It’s not a matter of me “winning”, but going solely to a sales tax isn’t going to eliminate the issues you bring up.

    Depending on how you define wealthy, many of those “loopholes” work for the middle class. Until the standard deduction was raised I claimed the mortgage interest deduction as well as the property tax deduction. I’m hardly “wealthy” and I’ve never earned $100k per year, or even close to it.

    As much as I appreciate it, my state made a huge mistake years ago. They upped the sales tax by 2% in exchange for a 50% reduction on property taxes then limiting the property tax increases to the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is lower.

    Property taxes fund local government and schools in my state. Both are now hurting for income due to those limitations and the state controlling some/much(?) of their funding. There’s little incentive to sell. If I owned a $100k house for 20 years, and am now considering downsizing and want to buy a $75k house, not only will I get less of a house, but I’m likely paying MORE in property taxes. Where is the incentive to sell? Or buy?

    I’m not saying the current system isn’t broken, nor adverse to other ideas, but trashing a system for a new one, one that isn’t thought out very well, and just as ripe for gaming it, isn’t the answer.

    My state has fairly high fuel taxes, along with high alcohol and tobacco taxes. People who live near border states, crossover and buy their fuel, booze and tobacco (hopefully, if they’re smart at least, with cash). People sell on the secondary market, tax free. They only way a strictly sales tax concept could work efficiently is if we did away with cash and went totally digital, so the government could track every transaction. An idea I’m totally against. Even then people would swap items and/or labor. Existing cash will become as valuable as bitcoin was not too long ago.

  2. 3 days ago on Wizard of Id

    Currently the people are taxed when they earn it and again when they save with what they save.

    People aren’t taxed on what they save, they’re taxed on the EARNINGS on what they saved. If we’re going to tax income, I see no problem taxing interest and dividends, if they’re avaliable to spend in the tax year they’re earned. Even if they’re not withdrawn and spent.

    I do have a problem taxing unrealized capital gains.

    Personally I’d much rather see taxing interest/dividends than wages as taxing wages discourages/penalizes working.

    Another issue/loophole, I see in taxing spending exclusively, a booming seconday market will appear. If I buy a TV new, I pay a tax, a HUGE tax as sales tax is the sole source of income for the government. If I buy a TV off of Facebook marketplace or Craigslist, or a swapmeet, or a popup market I’ll pay no tax. Incentive for those to expand and flourish.

    While I do see your point, and you have some interesting ideas, there will be as many, if not more, loopholes than in the current system. If it’s the loopholes and exemptions that you want to get rid of, then work to get rid of them.

    Maybe it’s not the taxes that are the issue. Maybe it’s the spending that’s the problem. Governments shouldn’t (at least in my opinion) be ensuring that every citizen has a new cell phone every year, a new(er) car every 3 years and everything else their heart desires (but they don’t want to work for).

    Government shouldn’t be ensuring a persons children have enough food to make them obese, or daycare. It they can’t or won’t afford their kids why should I be forced to afford their kids? Isn’t it enough they already get tax breaks non-parents don’t? (which your plan MAY get rid of).

    Get government away from the nanny state and back to ensuring safe roads and bridges, a secure electrical grid and water, regulations that balance workers rights versus employers rights, protecting consumers rights, effective schools.

  3. 3 days ago on Wizard of Id

    I don’t disagree with you that our savings rates need to be higher. I’m not sure it’s a “tax” issue though and not more of an entitlement issue. Too many believe they’re entitled to what they desire and right now. Along with an interest rate issue.

    There will be just as many, if not more, loopholes and drawbacks.

    What to tax? What is “necessary”. Some have argued against taxing clothing, and/or food, and/or personal hygene items, and/or cleaning supplies.

    If clothing below a certain price is exempt, aren’t we back into taxing the “rich” again? Or just put those who make more expensive clothes out of business? Or let’s say, I’m making $200 pair of jeans and that is the start point for taxation. I’ll just drop my price to $199 and now they’re tax free. A loophole.

    Should we tax fuel so people can get to work and back? Utilities for heating/cooling a house and cooking?

    What about when it’s times like these with supply chain issues and inflation? Goods in short supply and people cutting back? Granted it’s not much different than when people are forced out of work and on the government dole most of which is tax free.

    Someone suggested (maybe you?) taxing just houses and cars. That’s not practical. The tax rate would have to be very high (discouraging new purchases) and how many people buy new(er) cars and houses often enough? Granted I’m an anomoly, I’ve bought 3 cars in the last 20 years, all used and I drive them until they’re undrivable. I bought one house in the same amount of time

  4. 3 days ago on Wizard of Id

    Interesting, now using your words to prove you wrong is insulting?

    The silly term you’ve been throwing around is “strawman”. Self awareness can be a wonderful thing.

    As for the rest, we’re just going to have to disagree. I don’t believe that punishing those who work the hardest, study more, have more talent, or in some cases are just plain luckier than others so those with less ambition, less motivation can enjoy the very same benefits. They already pay more in absolute dollars while paying the same percentage, at least paying the same percentage is treating everyone in a similar manner.

    Have you stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, it’s NOT the amount of taxes collected that’s the issue, but how they’re spent. Paying people sit around and do nothing, how is that good for this country?

    Over 100 BILLION of covid relief money disappeared to fraud (and that’s not counting the money not going to relief due to hiring more government employees or hiring campaign “donors” to manage the distribution). Now let’s tax the “wealthy”, most of whom didn’t get any of those funds due to being “wealthy”, even more

  5. 4 days ago on Wizard of Id

    Why should dividends, interest and income be exempt from taxes?

  6. 4 days ago on Wizard of Id

    Presuming a sales tax of 20% (quite likely very low if that’s the only tax in the country), a person buying a $100,000 car would pay $20,000 in sales tax, while a person buying a $20,000 car would pay $4,000. So isn’t the person buying the $100,000 car being penalized $16,000 more for his success (in being able to afford such a car)?

    Not at all, because the person CHOOSING to pay $100,000 for a car also has the CHOICE to NOT spend $100k on a car and buy the $20k car (or NO car) and pay less in taxes. Either way he/she is paying the same PERCENTAGE (or no taxes if they choose to not buy a car)

  7. 4 days ago on Wizard of Id

    People don’t NEED cars, they want them. Most CHOOSE to live miles away from work and leisure activities. Most, if not every, city has some form of public transportation. Humans lived for millennia without cars and got along just fine and even today there are millions of people who don’t have cars and manage to live their lives.

    Granted having a car in todays society is more CONVENIENT, but not a necessity.

    It’s not MY sales tax “scheme” and I said a tax is a penalty, further I didn’t specify income, property or sales tax. All of those are (or can be considered) penalities for earning money (which for most people is necessary to spend it) People paying taxes based on the same percentage isn’t directly targeting wealth. Yes the person who makes more pays MORE but still pays the same percentage.

    People have more of a choice when it comes to property taxes and sales taxes. A person who earns $100,000 can choose to buy a less expensive house (and pay less in property taxes while still paying the same MILLIAGE) or choose to buy less expensive goods or fewer of those goods (paying less in taxes while still paying the same PERCENTAGE in taxes on the things he/she buys)

    I didn’t argue for a sliding scale based on income, so you’re attacking a straw man — again. I argued for a sliding sales t Really?? Now you’re just being dishonest and using silly terms only makes you look more desperate and dishonest.

    Did you not say this taxing people more (in absolute dollars) for purchasing more expensive things because they can afford those more expensive things is basically taxing them based on wealth. (see the above paragraph for your exact words)

    From your own words, two people buying the same car (or pair of jeans, or whatever) would pay different sales tax based on their income. If both Joan and Tommy are buying the same model car for the same price, Joan who makes 200K per year would pay more in sales tax than Tommy who makes 50K per year

  8. 5 days ago on Wizard of Id

    No, that couldn’t be “equally” argued. That’s more like socialism. Taxing somebody more for expensive things is already done today — see “luxury taxes”. Losing money on a sale because somebody can’t afford my expensive house, car, etc. is just ridiculous.

    Luxury taxes and sin taxes are levied on items that aren’t considered a necessity, or even common everyday use items.

    A tax IS a penalty, it’s a mandatory fee for having a job or buying things, levied under the threat of more fees/fines/penalties, jail/prison time or loss of goods (including your house) and other possessions.

    Arguing for a sliding scale for taxes based on income is no different than arguing for sliding scale for purchases or for fines. You can deny it all you want, it won’t change the facts though.

  9. 5 days ago on Wizard of Id

    We shall see. I hope so.

    Personally I’d like to see a Constitutional Amendment which says something along the lines of “Except where necessary to conduct an essential function of government, no government agency, department, branch or person, whether elected or appointed, shall exempt themselves from the laws.”

    Obviously, a fire truck or ambulance might have to violate speeding laws or stop lights (safely, without endangering the public) to do their jobs effectively. Same with police, they might have to speed to catch a criminal, or some such.

    Informed citizen panels would decide what is necessary and when.

  10. 5 days ago on Wizard of Id

    Since the “working class” make the vast majority of purchases, which keeps the corporations alive, they do care. Like everybody else, corporations will pay the least they can for what they want and within the accepted range of quality.