Originally Posted by Robert

Rich people don't pay income taxes.

Rich people pay income taxes but it's mostly on a voluntary basis. Non-rich people pay income taxes on an involuntary basis.

By rich I mean those who don't need to work to live comfortably. There are enough loopholes for them to escape most taxation - luckily for the rest of us most of them still like to work and are willing to pay taxes. But this is a dangerous situation - the income tax code is corrupt to its core. Bush is starting out by lowering income and estate taxes, which is a good thing. The question remains whether he is serious about reforming the entire system. We'll see.

While the popular rhetoric suggests "It's for the children"; the reality is it's really for the "entitled" poor. Here in Ohio, anyway:



What is Medicaid?
Medicaid is an ?entitlement program? created by the federal government, but administered by the state, to provide payment for medical services for low-income citizens. People qualify for Medicaid by meeting federal income and asset standards and by fitting into a specified eligibility. Under federal rules, DHSS has authority to limit services as long as the services provided are adequate in ?amount, duration, and scope? to satisfy the recipient?s medical needs.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

While the popular rhetoric suggests "It's for the children"; the reality is it's really for the "entitled" poor. Here in Ohio, anyway:



What is Medicaid?
Medicaid is an ?entitlement program? created by the federal government, but administered by the state, to provide payment for medical services for low-income citizens. People qualify for Medicaid by meeting federal income and asset standards and by fitting into a specified eligibility. Under federal rules, DHSS has authority to limit services as long as the services provided are adequate in ?amount, duration, and scope? to satisfy the recipient?s medical needs.

I don't know about Ohio, but nationally, a good deal of Medicaid expenses goes to pay for nursing home expenses for elderly people who have spent down their assets. Medicare doesn't cover nursing home expenses, so elderly people without sufficient income (or private insurance) to cover nursing home costs generally spend down their savings until they are broke, then Medicaid kicks in. I believe that it could be as much as half of all Medicaid costs going to these elders, many of whom were not poor to begin with.

Another chunk of Medicaid covers medical expenses for indigent disabled persons. These are folk that are not able to work in any shape or form and are too young to get Medicare.

For the remaining Medicaid expenses, I am curious what Marc and others would suggest for providing health insurance for low-income working families whose jobs don't provide health insurance? These "lucky duckies" don't pay much in the way of Federal Income taxes, so a tax deduction or credit won't help them.

Let's forget the "who pays all the taxes" argument for a minute, and concetrate on the effects of wealth generation. Since the conservative argument is, 'the rich are being gouged', they must be losing their wealth to the 'not-rich'. As even the most conservative pro-rich advocate has to admit - not so.

So if the rich are paying the taxes and are getting richer all the time, you have to assume they're getting their money's worth. Taxes: the best return on investment for those in the chips.

Rich people LIKE the Income Tax. Think about it. Rich people don't pay the income tax. The Middle Class does. Since the Middle Class pays for everything this ensures they will NEVER become provident enough to start their own businesses and grow large enough to threaten the people who are already rich! Rich people only worry about other rich people who are their competitors. The Income Tax serves to LIMIT COMPETITION and maintain HIGH PRICES for existing firms.

So long as the Income Tax is in place the Middle Class will always live hand to mouth and in debt to the banking system (which is precisely what the rich and or the politicians WANT! Almost all the members of the Senate and Congress are well to do.)

Originally Posted by David '47

Let's forget the "who pays all the taxes" argument for a minute, and concetrate on the effects of wealth generation. Since the conservative argument is, 'the rich are being gouged', they must be losing their wealth to the 'not-rich'. As even the most conservative pro-rich advocate has to admit - not so.

So if the rich are paying the taxes and are getting richer all the time, you have to assume they're getting their money's worth. Taxes: the best return on investment for those in the chips.

Aside from the obvious "class envy" of which this post reeks of, and apart from the fact that a google search, on the supposed quote, "the rich are being gouged," did not match any documents, I wonder if our cynical poster might be so kind as to define his notion of "rich" for us?

Originally Posted by Robert

Rich people LIKE the Income Tax. Think about it. Rich people don't pay the income tax. The Middle Class does. Since the Middle Class pays for everything this ensures they will NEVER become provident enough to start their own businesses and grow large enough to threaten the people who are already rich! Rich people only worry about other rich people who are their competitors. The Income Tax serves to LIMIT COMPETITION and maintain HIGH PRICES for existing firms.

So long as the Income Tax is in place the Middle Class will always live hand to mouth and in debt to the banking system (which is precisely what the rich and or the politicians WANT! Almost all the members of the Senate and Congress are well to do.)

This is the gospel truth. And I recall that Alan Keyes of all people got excoriated in the last round of presidential debates for saying just this since it breaks with Republican orthodoxy. I never believed this myself and always considered it to be liberal propaganda. But I was mistaken. There are of course offshore accounts and any number of other devices by which the "rich" can hide their money, and such knowledge and ability is not commonly found among the middle class. Thus the middle class foots the bill in their ignorance. Keyes was right and the Kool-Aid drinkers were wrong.

For this and other reasons, I favor consumption taxes exclusively. The "rich" would no longer be able to evade and shift the burden to the middle class, and the heretofore untapped underground economy would produce a goldmine, offsetting the burden on everyone across the board. But when I speak of consumption taxes, I tend to get into trouble with the same people who recognize that the "rich" duck their taxes and use the income tax to screw the middle class. Go figure!

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

For this and other reasons, I favor consumption taxes exclusively. The "rich" would no longer be able to evade and shift the burden to the middle class, and the heretofore untapped underground economy would produce a goldmine, offsetting the burden on everyone across the board. But when I speak of consumption taxes, I tend to get into trouble with the same people who recognize that the "rich" duck their taxes and use the income tax to screw the middle class. Go figure!

I think the problem liberals have with a consumption tax is that the poor spend all of their income on necessities whereas the rich can save much of their income and thus avoid paying tax on the income that they save. As a result, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Liberals, who believe that taxes should be borne more by those who have the resources to pay, have a problem with regressive taxes in general.

You can design a consumption tax that gets around this problem by excluding basic items such as food, to lighten the burden on the poor. I vaguely recall Bruce Babbitt flirting with such ideas in the eighties. There is a way to have a progressive consumption tax, and as such, I personnally find the idea appealing.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I think the problem liberals have with a consumption tax is that the poor spend all of their income on necessities whereas the rich can save much of their income and thus avoid paying tax on the income that they save. As a result, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes. The "rich" continue to hide their money and evade so now the middle class alone foots the bill.

You can design a consumption tax that gets around this problem by excluding basic items such as food, to lighten the burden on the poor. I vaguely recall Bruce Babbitt flirting with such ideas in the eighties. There is a way to have a progressive consumption tax, and as such, I personnally find the idea appealing.

This was the Keyes plan as well. There would be a "market basket" of essential products exempt from the tax. To an extent, such exemptions open up a whole new can of worms with government. However, I believe this solution is far superior to our present nightmare with the income tax. Can you imagine the revenue which would flow in from drug money which is completely untapped today? I do not think people can imagine how low these consumption taxes might be once ALL the money in circulation is taxed, drug revenues and all.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I think the problem liberals have with a consumption tax is that the poor spend all of their income on necessities whereas the rich can save much of their income and thus avoid paying tax on the income that they save. As a result, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes. The "rich" continue to hide their money and evade so now the middle class alone foots the bill.

You can design a consumption tax that gets around this problem by excluding basic items such as food, to lighten the burden on the poor. I vaguely recall Bruce Babbitt flirting with such ideas in the eighties. There is a way to have a progressive consumption tax, and as such, I personnally find the idea appealing.

This was the Keyes plan as well. There would be a "market basket" of essential products exempt from the tax. To an extent, such exemptions open up a whole new can of worms with government. However, I believe this solution is far superior to our present nightmare with the income tax. Can you imagine the revenue which would flow in from drug money which is completely untapped today? I do not think people can imagine how low these consumption taxes might be once ALL the money in circulation is taxed, drug revenues and all.

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Americans are bargin shoppers. We'd all sit at home an rot before we spent like that.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes.

Just curious. Is it a problem to you that the poor pay little or nothing in income taxes (while paying some of their income in sales and payroll taxes)?

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Americans are bargin shoppers. We'd all sit at home and rot before we spent like that.

Remmber, Americans will have much larger paycheck from which to pay the higher prices for goods and services.

However, you do have a point -- people will be more likely to save under a consumption tax. That has good and bad points.

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Market mechanisms are still in place and there is the added advantage that everybody has a stake in keeping taxes low since they can no longer slough them off on someone who makes more money. A Toyota will not be priced like a Lexus. And even if a Toyota is priced higher than today, the consumer will have one hell of a lot more disposable income absent the income tax. In fact, Toyotas will be priced lower relative to most people's incomes absent the income tax.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes.

Just curious. Is it a problem to you that the poor pay little or nothing in income taxes (while paying some of their income in sales and payroll taxes)?

No, my problem is with the income tax itself. It gives someone else (in this case government) a preemptive claim on all your earnings. And we are somehow supposed to be thankful when government only elects to take half when it had no inherent right to any of it in the first place (because none of that money BELONGED to it). Let all individuals keep the fruits of their labors, free from theft (governmental or otherwise), and let them choose for themselves how much they wish to pay in taxes by how much they wish to consume.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Market mechanisms are still in place and there is the added advantage that everybody has a stake in keeping taxes low since they can no longer slough them off on someone who makes more money. A Toyota will not be priced like a Lexus. And even if a Toyota is priced higher than today, the consumer will have one hell of a lot more disposable income absent the income tax. In fact, Toyotas will be priced lower relative to most people's incomes absent the income tax.

H-m-m-m-m. It doesn't seem to work that way in Europe. In fact, most European countries are trying to reduce their consumption taxes because they're retarding their economies.

And they have the best version of the consumption tax: the VAT.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Americans are bargin shoppers. We'd all sit at home and rot before we spent like that.

Remmber, Americans will have much larger paycheck from which to pay the higher prices for goods and services.

However, you do have a point -- people will be more likely to save under a consumption tax. That has good and bad points.

By eliminating the income tax, incentives for work and investing will increase and thus lead to greater efficiencies and economic output. These incentives together with the substantial savings due to tax simplification will more than make up for any disincentive to consume as the result of a consumption tax.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes.

Just curious. Is it a problem to you that the poor pay little or nothing in income taxes (while paying some of their income in sales and payroll taxes)?

No, my problem is with the income tax itself. It gives someone else (in this case government) a preemptive claim on all your earnings. And we are somehow supposed to be thankful when government only elects to take half when it had no inherent right to any of it in the first place (because none of that money BELONGED to it). Let all individuals keep the fruits of their labors, free from theft (governmental or otherwise), and let them choose for themselves how much they wish to pay in taxes by how much they wish to consume.

Wrong on all counts, but TOTALLY wrong on the ownership of 'money'. ALL money belongs to the government, which created it in the ifrst place. If we didn't have it, and chose to barter for exchange, we would all live in caves. I think the governemtn is generous giving us some of their money to spend on ourselves. :lol:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes.

Just curious. Is it a problem to you that the poor pay little or nothing in income taxes (while paying some of their income in sales and payroll taxes)?

No, my problem is with the income tax itself. It gives someone else (in this case government) a preemptive claim on all your earnings. And we are somehow supposed to be thankful when government only elects to take half when it had no inherent right to any of it in the first place (because none of that money BELONGED to it). Let all individuals keep the fruits of their labors, free from theft (governmental or otherwise), and let them choose for themselves how much they wish to pay in taxes by how much they wish to consume.

Wrong on all counts, but TOTALLY wrong on the ownership of 'money'. ALL money belongs to the government, which created it in the first place. If we didn't have it, and chose to barter for exchange, we would all live in caves.

I think the government is generous giving us some of their money to spend on ourselves. :lol:

Originally Posted by David '47

H-m-m-m-m. It doesn't seem to work that way in Europe. In fact, most European countries are trying to reduce their consumption taxes because they're retarding their economies.

And they have the best version of the consumption tax: the VAT.

They have the VAT plus the income tax. That is the worst of all possible worlds! Of course they have the problems they do. What a complex, confusing, unmanageable mess! The income tax must be abandoned altogether in favor of a national sales taxes. It should never be combined with a national sales tax.

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Americans are bargin shoppers. We'd all sit at home and rot before we spent like that.

Remmber, Americans will have much larger paycheck from which to pay the higher prices for goods and services.

However, you do have a point -- people will be more likely to save under a consumption tax. That has good and bad points.

By eliminating the income tax, incentives for work and investing will increase and thus lead to greater efficiencies and economic output. These incentives together with the substantial savings due to tax simplification will more than make up for any disincentive to consume as the result of a consumption tax.

I guess you assume that it's possible to push string, because that's what you're suggesting here. You don't get demand by improving efficiency. In fact, that generates LESS demand - at least a lot less than the amount of supply. What you get is unemployment followed by brief periods of high output again followed by unemployment. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that's called an underdamped system.

This is the voo-doo that GWB do so well. We'll all have the opportunity to see it fail.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

H-m-m-m-m. It doesn't seem to work that way in Europe. In fact, most European countries are trying to reduce their consumption taxes because they're retarding their economies.

And they have the best version of the consumption tax: the VAT.

They have the VAT plus the income tax. That is the worst of all possible worlds! Of course they have the problems they do. What a complex, confusing, unmanageable mess! The income tax must be abandoned altogether in favor of a national sales taxes. It should never be combined with a national sales tax.

Yes, European taxes take about 42% of GDP whereas in the US taxes take only 30% of GDP. No wonder they want to lower taxes. Besides there are better ways to implement consumption taxes than the VAT.

Originally Posted by David '47

Wrong on all counts, but TOTALLY wrong on the ownership of 'money'. ALL money belongs to the government, which created it in the ifrst place.

David, you have your moments of brilliance but this is not one of them. :wink: Government prints money as a unit of exchange. But government does not produce the wealth that money is intended to represent. We do! The fruits of our labor belong to us, not to government. Government simply prints money so that we do not have to barter directly. It facilitates trade. But it is we who produce the wealth, not government.

If we didn't have it, and chose to barter for exchange, we would all live in caves. I think the governemtn is generous giving us some of their money to spend on ourselves. :lol:

Again, government does not produce wealth. It simply prints money to facilitate trade among We The People who actually do produce wealth.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Americans are bargin shoppers. We'd all sit at home and rot before we spent like that.

Remmber, Americans will have much larger paycheck from which to pay the higher prices for goods and services.

However, you do have a point -- people will be more likely to save under a consumption tax. That has good and bad points.

By eliminating the income tax, incentives for work and investing will increase and thus lead to greater efficiencies and economic output. These incentives together with the substantial savings due to tax simplification will more than make up for any disincentive to consume as the result of a consumption tax.

I guess you assume that it's possible to push string, because that's what you're suggesting here. You don't get demand by improving efficiency. In fact, that generates LESS demand - at least a lot less than the amount of supply. What you get is unemployment followed by brief periods of high output again followed by unemployment. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that's called an underdamped system.

This is the voo-doo that GWB do so well. We'll all have the opportunity to see it fail.

I think you're confusing certain cyclical manifestations in economic systems with economies in general. While there may be periods of pushing on a string, in general, working more hours and more efficiently is good for economies. Further, consumption taxes are well-suited to macroeconomic policy interventions to increase temporary pallid consumption - just lower the tax rate.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Right, but as it stands now, the "poor" pay nothing (or next to nothing) in income taxes.

Just curious. Is it a problem to you that the poor pay little or nothing in income taxes (while paying some of their income in sales and payroll taxes)?

No, my problem is with the income tax itself. It gives someone else (in this case government) a preemptive claim on all your earnings. And we are somehow supposed to be thankful when government only elects to take half when it had no inherent right to any of it in the first place (because none of that money BELONGED to it). Let all individuals keep the fruits of their labors, free from theft (governmental or otherwise), and let them choose for themselves how much they wish to pay in taxes by how much they wish to consume.

Wrong on all counts, but TOTALLY wrong on the ownership of 'money'. ALL money belongs to the government, which created it in the ifrst place. If we didn't have it, and chose to barter for exchange, we would all live in caves. I think the governemtn is generous giving us some of their money to spend on ourselves. :lol:

Interesting view... I never heard that one before but it just makes sense intuitively in my opinion! (And your views on the consumption tax make sense... at worst they will be a very regressive tax and at best they will create forced frugality - and as a Taurus I like luxury :-))

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by David '47

Be careful what you wish-for. A consumption tax has the nasty side effect of depressing consumption, which is the basis of our economy. Can you see people wanting to pay Lexus prices for Toyotas? How about dinner out at $80 a person, unless you decide to go fancy, of course.

Americans are bargin shoppers. We'd all sit at home and rot before we spent like that.

Remmber, Americans will have much larger paycheck from which to pay the higher prices for goods and services.

However, you do have a point -- people will be more likely to save under a consumption tax. That has good and bad points.

By eliminating the income tax, incentives for work and investing will increase and thus lead to greater efficiencies and economic output. These incentives together with the substantial savings due to tax simplification will more than make up for any disincentive to consume as the result of a consumption tax.

I guess you assume that it's possible to push string, because that's what you're suggesting here. You don't get demand by improving efficiency. In fact, that generates LESS demand - at least a lot less than the amount of supply. What you get is unemployment followed by brief periods of high output again followed by unemployment. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that's called an underdamped system.

This is the voo-doo that GWB do so well. We'll all have the opportunity to see it fail.

I think you're confusing certain cyclical manifestations in economic systems with economies in general. While there may be periods of pushing on a string, in general, working more hours and more efficiently is good for economies. Further, consumption taxes are well-suited to macroeconomic policy interventions to increase temporary pallid consumption - just lower the tax rate.

This all started with the idea that we can drastically reduce income taxes by replacing them (or at least MOST of them) with consumption taxes. If we do that, we must raise the consumption tax level high enought o compensate, which would be in the range of 35-45%.

So first you encourage production, then you discourage consumption. May I ask how you keep things afloat without a boom-bust cycle or worse, endemic deflation?

Answer: you don't - not even with occassional tax rate changes!

Comment: This is especially foolish when you decide to rely on this form of taxation so heavily. If you need to restrat consumption, you need to empoverish the governemtn to do it.

Which leads to Horn's Corollary: "Nothing applies to everything". In other words, there is no universal ideal.

Conclusion: this idea stinks - in plaid and stripes!