Sales taxes instead of property taxes

@cruise95,

One argument against a sales tax is that it would be very regressive, and effect the poor far more than the affluent; to avoid this would require exemptions of, or different rates for, certain categories (e.g. food or medicine).

0 Replies

@cruise95,

cruise95 wrote:

The good thing about a sales tax is that it would be easier to administrate than an income tax..

You are talking about the property tax not the income tax though.

If taxing people more for buying more things makes sense, then taxing people more for having a bigger house makes sense. The house is generally the biggest thing people own, if you live in a mansion but hardly buy anything you are still very rich.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

cruise95;123430 wrote:

A higher sales tax has been brought up many times in liu of some other tax (mostly income). Recently a candidate proposed a sales tax instead of property taxes (in Texas).

The good thing about a sales tax is that it would be easier to administrate than an income tax...less loopholes I believe and thus fewer compex regulations are needed. A sales tax would also mean taxing utilites (gas, water, etc.) as well as store bought items.

I never really liked property taxes and the idea that I never really owned my home. Once I pay for it I still have to pay taxes on it every year!

I'm just wondering what some opinions are about a sales tax?

Sounds like the perfect breeding ground for bribes.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

We are going to have to tax pretty much everything to pay for our huge and increasing national debt, annual deficits and social entitlement programs.

Sales taxes are very regressive (affect the poor more than the rich). Generally the rich do not really consume that much more than the poor.

Why is the tax on (capital) gains (bonds, stocks, real estate) 15% and the tax on salary and wages (labor) up to 39%?
.
The Europeans use a VAT value added tax on most manufactured items and services which is regressive like a sales tax.

Annual taxes on acquired property are kind of annoying, it seems like you pay over and over for the same item.

Estate taxes (death taxes) also seem like a final tax on everything that was not taxed before; traditionally up to more than 50% of an estate (state and federal estate taxes) although if you die this year 2010 there is no federal estate tax but in 2011 estates greater than 1 million dollars will be subject to up to 50% federal tax. Hurry Uncle Harry along.

The basic problem in the US now is populism and pandering politicians. Everyone wants these government services, benefits and entitlements but no one actually wants to be taxed to pay for them. Social Security will soon be insolvent, Medicare is insolvent, National Health Care will be insolvent the day it is passed. Politicians know to cut services or to increase taxes is political suicide so we push the cost onto future generations. That is not statesmanship, leadership or wisdom. In the end the bill will come due and debt default or austerity (high taxes, low growth and high unemployment) will be the result. In some ways though the public is getting what they want (services now, debt later) and what they deserve (who can get elected advocating fewer services and higher taxes?).

0 Replies

@cruise95,

All of the government we actually need (very little) could be financed through corporate and capital gains taxes. Taxing property amounts to a nullification of property rights, while taxing labor or sales is inherently regressive. I would advocate a national corporate and capital gains tax, and an ammendment to the constitution which prohibited the states from imposing any form of taxation other than either of those. The great advantage of those two sorts of taxation, other than the fact that they aren't regressive and don't threaten property rights, is the fact that they only produce revenues in the event of growth. A government which began to grow itself and spend money such that the economy suffered would find it increasingly difficult to fund itself and would have to reverse those destructive policies. Couple this with a constitutional ammendment that prohibited the government from borrowing altogether, and another which enshrined gold as the only legal tender, and I'd be a happy man.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

cruise95;123430 wrote:

A higher sales tax has been brought up many times in liu of some other tax (mostly income). Recently a candidate proposed a sales tax instead of property taxes (in Texas).

The good thing about a sales tax is that it would be easier to administrate than an income tax...less loopholes I believe and thus fewer compex regulations are needed. A sales tax would also mean taxing utilites (gas, water, etc.) as well as store bought items.

I never really liked property taxes and the idea that I never really owned my home. Once I pay for it I still have to pay taxes on it every year!

I'm just wondering what some opinions are about a sales tax?

Let me explain the sitiation to yas... The sales tax weighs mos heavily upon the poor who never have and must always buy... This country is a common wealth, and there might be some reason to put public property, as this land once was, into private hands, but there is no reason it should be free of taxes...When this country was firs constituted, it was property which supported the entire government...The effect of this was higher wages, and lower prices for property...The reason was simple... Property had to pay taxes,, and if it could not it would go on the auction block, which happened all the time...In order to make property pay, labor was necessary, so this drove up wages... When the income tax was first made constitutional it was only paid by eleven to thirteen percent of the population...Clearly, those who made it law wanted to soak the rich, but it has been forced onto 50% of the population, and there is has driven wages down... When labor finds it necessary to pay income taxes it must work twice as hard for half as much, since one part goes to the government, and one part goes to profit...And since property is set free of the support of government, it can be held off the market, sat on for years, and the price is driven up...Since wages are driven down, the buyer of property is forced to use credit, paying well over the price of price inflated property.... And the need to pay interest spurs him on to ever wilder feats of labor..

So why shouldn't property pay taxes, at least productive property??? Most people in prisons are there for crimes against property... Property has well defined rights, which the government enforces, so why should property not pay for the privilage...When the army goes out in defense of the country which the best and better part of is in private hands, who should pay??? Now it is those without wealth or property paying with their lives and wallets for those rich people who refuse taxation, and live or die, most of those employed in war will never own so much as a grave to be buried in...In fact, it is taxation on labor and sales taxes which contribute to the great disparity of wealth, because so long as private wealth need not support the common wealth it can be held in perpetuity, never having to pay its own way..

1 Reply

@Fido,

jgweed;123450 wrote:

One argument against a sales tax is that it would be very regressive, and effect the poor far more than the affluent

prothero;137280 wrote:

Sales taxes are very regressive (affect the poor more than the rich). Generally the rich do not really consume that much more than the poor.

Nonsense. A sales tax is much more progressive than our current tax system, especially with a higher rate for luxury items, because "the rich" spend so much more money. Food and necessities could even be exempted, depending on how much we cut government.
We don't have a sales tax because it is so progressive! The rich don't want it. They are happy with the middle class paying the bill.

And actually the rich consume more than the poor per definition, as measured by their higher spending.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

Yes, but not as a percentage of their income as the rich are usually able to save surplus income.

Europe has a sales tax (VAT) which is around the 20% mark (varies between countries). Some items (food) are zero rated. It is generally recognised as somewhat regressive when compared with income tax.

1 Reply

@exile,

[QUOTE=cruise95;123430]A higher sales tax has been brought up many times in liu of some other tax (mostly income). Recently a candidate proposed a sales tax instead of property taxes (in Texas).
The good thing about a sales tax is that it would be easier to administrate than an income tax...less loopholes I believe and thus fewer compex regulations are needed. A sales tax would also mean taxing utilites (gas, water, etc.) as well as store bought items.
I never really liked property taxes and the idea that I never really owned my home. Once I pay for it I still have to pay taxes on it every year!
I'm just wondering what some opinions are about a sales tax?[/QUOTE]

Okay, I'm not against the sales tax (i'll give my preferred taxes later), but when you say the thing about Texas's taxation proposal is actually an add-on. Texas's State Legislature can only tax indirectly and on certain things like sales. So, this is not a change to Texans.

The Texas Constitution is one of the best in the world, and that is one of reasons: limits on taxes which the government can do.
　
[QUOTE=jgweed;123450]One argument against a sales tax is that it would be very regressive, and effect the poor far more than the affluent; to avoid this would require exemptions of, or different rates for, certain categories (e.g. food or medicine).[/quote]

Agreeable. Food, Beverages, Medicines, Water, Utilities, and Fuel should be those certain categories. There is one but i can't remember the other.

[QUOTE=BrightNoon;138841]All of the government we actually need (very little) could be financed through corporate and capital gains taxes. Taxing property amounts to a nullification of property rights, while taxing labor or sales is inherently regressive. I would advocate a national corporate and capital gains tax, and an ammendment to the constitution which prohibited the states from imposing any form of taxation other than either of those. The great advantage of those two sorts of taxation, other than the fact that they aren't regressive and don't threaten property rights, is the fact that they only produce revenues in the event of growth. A government which began to grow itself and spend money such that the economy suffered would find it increasingly difficult to fund itself and would have to reverse those destructive policies. Couple this with a constitutional ammendment that prohibited the government from borrowing altogether, and another which enshrined gold as the only legal tender, and I'd be a happy man.[/quote]

I think your idea is well intentioned, but the method at which you attempt is dangerous or won't ever happen. Here is my opinion to oppose yours...

The federal constitution should be amended so it can no longer tax the people directly ever, but must ascertain an apportioned debt to the States. Then, the States should on their own accord and charater tax as they would want. If you don't like it in one State vote to change it or with your feet.

But let's say in a perfect world, the taxes that are imposed by the States should be simply a direct tax at which a person pays a certain percentage of their total gross income of the previous fiscal year of the State government imposing said tax. The tax rate should be flat at anything lower than 17%. The reason for the flat rate is because a "rich" person will pay more because they have more total gross income than a poorer person. So it is completely fair as everyone pays the same rate. I understand that the poor would suffer if the tax rate is high; the process of republican government would solve that by the poor lowering the flat tax rate. It would make government very careful upon not making the flat-rate too high. This tax would also make the government at a static size during times of no growth in GDP per capita and/or total gross income, and if there is a raise in either of the two (which i am pretty sure they are interdependent), the revenue would increase relative to it which would make a surplus. Hopefully, there would be balanced budget provisions and surplus handling provisions in those constitutions or amendments. If there is that would mean the government could spend more (which i don't think would be good) or tax less if there is a sufficient amount of the surplus.

Oh, i forgot it could pay off the debt could be another option.
This is very idealistic, but essentially acheivable if the people so choose to follow this. Taxes are really dependant upon the people who are taxed. People in California may be opposed to property taxes because of the high value of land while people in Montana might not care for one. The people in Texas are more inclined to a sales tax while the people in New York prefer the income tax. It is all dependent upon the taxed.

The sales tax could also essentially cause the government to grow in tune with the economy as there is more spending in times of boom and less in times of bust as it would follow those patterns of spending and saving.

As a side note, does the federal reserve control the interest rates that would be a tax rate basis (or one of) in the capital gains tax? Could the federal reserve raise the interest rate which would raise the tax rate? As we have a fiat money system which is based upon the flow amount of capital and future tax revenue (they are used for the current supply and value promised by the issuer, and when interest rates are high more money is created when no money had previously existed), higher interest more create more money, as the system entails, and this creates inflation. I'm not sure if i'm right or not, please tell me otherwise with proofs to support it if i'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Fido;139206]Let me explain the sitiation to yas... The sales tax weighs mos heavily upon the poor who never have and must always buy... This country is a common wealth, and there might be some reason to put public property, as this land once was, into private hands, but there is no reason it should be free of taxes...When this country was firs constituted, it was property which supported the entire government...The effect of this was higher wages, and lower prices for property...The reason was simple... Property had to pay taxes,, and if it could not it would go on the auction block, which happened all the time...In order to make property pay, labor was necessary, so this drove up wages... When the income tax was first made constitutional it was only paid by eleven to thirteen percent of the population...Clearly, those who made it law wanted to soak the rich, but it has been forced onto 50% of the population, and there is has driven wages down... When labor finds it necessary to pay income taxes it must work twice as hard for half as much, since one part goes to the government, and one part goes to profit...And since property is set free of the support of government, it can be held off the market, sat on for years, and the price is driven up...Since wages are driven down, the buyer of property is forced to use credit, paying well over the price of price inflated property.... And the need to pay interest spurs him on to ever wilder feats of labor..[/quote]

[QUOTE=Fido;139206]So why shouldn't property pay taxes, at least productive property??? Most people in prisons are there for crimes against property... Property has well defined rights, which the government enforces, so why should property not pay for the privilage...When the army goes out in defense of the country which the best and better part of is in private hands, who should pay??? Now it is those without wealth or property paying with their lives and wallets for those rich people who refuse taxation, and live or die, most of those employed in war will never own so much as a grave to be buried in...In fact, it is taxation on labor and sales taxes which contribute to the great disparity of wealth, because so long as private wealth need not support the common wealth it can be held in perpetuity, never having to pay its own way..[/QUOTE]
　
I will organize this according to sentences excluding the "Let me explain the situation to yas..."
　
First: Well doesn't tthe rich have to buy things too?
　
Second and Third:
No, it actually is not: it was a confederation at first, then changed into a federation. A commonwealth is a body politic bound to the common welfare (well-being) or a republic; where is that in the federal constitution? Actually, that land you are talking about it is land given by the States to the federal government because the federal government had taken up a load of debt from the war. Land was the only valuable asset on the continent. It was only natural for the federal government want it.
　
Fourth through Seventh:
How would this cause the wages to be higher? Lower prices for property is relative and dependent upon the supply of it and the demand for it, and the public property doesn't pay taxes, and in that matter property don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. Property taxes are based upon the value of said property which the owner pays for. In effect, the person the taxed. After using this refute, the rest of your arguement falls apart into dust. It would go to the auction block because the government needed money. How would property pay? It is a resource which can't pay, but only be paid for. Why would labor be necessary to it make it pay?
　
Eighth through Tenth:
The first is reasonable, because it is true, but that's what happens when government gets such power and hides thier true agenda. Why is it so terrible for only 50% paying? Isn't it unfair for the ones who pay because there is more who are able to pay?! Well, i thought you were a socialist or a communist, but this proves that you may be a anarcho-socialist or in that area. Actually wages don't go down; the pocketed income is reduced. The wage is the same. Taxes upon the business and property lower wages because the business has to divert capital over to pay other debts incurred by taxes.
　
Eleventh through Thirteenth:
I don't quite understand this part because how long something waits doesn't really determine the price. The price as previouslt said and widely known that supply and demand control the price. It goes up when the supply is low or the demand is high. That is economic law. Another price setting thing is price of labor, cost of burden and goods, all put together and using simple algebra the price of the supplier is determined, but competition is very adament setter even if the supplier dislikes that price. That is in general the way prices are set, naturally. The government should and rarely sets foot here, unless it is taxes. Government by my account has never lowered prices because it is a monopoloy meaning there's no competition. It has no need to have low prices or be effective in any matter.
Inflation is when money's value goes down to a lower value which the government controls arbitrarily with the federal reserve.
The buyer is not forced to use credit unless he is that desperate. Hopefully, he's not that desperate, but if he is then by all reason he has to. Of course, he will work more because that is he'll get resources to pay off said debt. This is how it works. If his wage and job is bad then he should get training to get a better job that entails primarily a higher wage. How is this bad? This makes job and labor division a economic standard of alteration.

Fourteenth through Sixteenth:
As previously mentioned, property is a resource. It has no rights! Property rights are simply rights that entails actions like possessing, maintaining, and improving it, et cetera. The rights of protection you are talking about are the rights of the owner to not have his property be damaged or violated by others who don't own it. Property doesn't have any priveleges; property has a respect as a resource of man i.e. money, land, trinkets, and such. The respect comes from the veiwpoint that man's property is sacred because from it we create.

Well, the army goes out to war, then the taxpayers should obviously. Soldiers are quite well payed by the government, so those people do get to own more than that, and most lead sucessful lives with the respect of many citizens who still respect the army.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/Image2.gif

[http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-36.pdf]
Here are some statistics about the tax payments which this obviously shows that the poor pay little of the tax amount, but most importantly get money in return. So i believe the "rich" pay more than the "poor".

Last of them:
First of all, taxes on labor has the effect you are talking about, but none others. Sales taxes which are usually low don't make a big enough effect to really be a bother unless there is inflation which the government creates. Simply, the problem with this is that you evade, to the point of the denying, the thing that people can, and should at the time you describe, improve their conditions on their own. They need no pity because they have the oppurtunity to improve the same. If they can't, charity from churches should be given.

Like property, wealth is a resource and can't "pay its way". Perpetuity is completely because it is a resource that is owned by a person whom can do whatever they want with it i.e. hold on to it which is economically a bad idea, invest most common, or give it to the "commonwealth". You should call it a commune.
　
[QUOTE=EmperorNero;154292]Nonsense. A sales tax is much more progressive than our current tax system, especially with a higher rate for luxury items, because "the rich" spend so much more money. Food and necessities could even be exempted, depending on how much we cut government.[/quote][QUOTE=EmperorNero;154292]
We don't have a sales tax because it is so progressive! The rich don't want it. They are happy with the middle class paying the bill.
And actually the rich consume more than the poor per definition, as measured by their higher spending.[/QUOTE]
Thank You! I like this idea.
　
[QUOTE=exile;168205]Yes, but not as a percentage of their income as the rich are usually able to save surplus income. [/quote][QUOTE=exile;168205]
Europe has a sales tax (VAT) which is around the 20% mark (varies between countries). Some items (food) are zero rated. It is generally recognised as somewhat regressive when compared with income tax.[/QUOTE]
　
A VAT is too complicated and hard to administer compared to a simpler sales tax. It hits smaller business harder because it taxes every part of the production and all transactions instead of the just sales transaction. Then reclaiming isjust as confusing as the refunds of the income tax. The VAT has that against it as well. All of this is from a bit of information on it, so i may have something wrong. Please tell me if i do and show evidence and proof of your correction.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

Do the rich have to buy things too??? Not exactly... The poor and working people live hand to mouth... They have to spend almost all of their income on necessities to live... Speaking from experience, it is rare to get any milage out of anything once it is paid off, and interest, with taxation is one of those things that bleed the rich... How many fine homes does a rich person buy, and how many fine cars... Their money goes in the bank, or is invested... Ours is spent...It is wealth and property which should be taxed and that is because it is an absolute poison to a democratically minded society...Notice that the rich plead poverty at tax time, but at election time they have plenty of ways of influencing elections, and plenty of money to do it with...Why are they not interested in supporting the same government as us??? It is because their money, just like their ability to keep all they have unmolested is only as good as their government's ability to squeeze the last dime out of us...We pay to see government work, and never do, and they pay to see government not work and their pay is rewarded with little progress...The rich could not grow rich, and the poor would not always grow more numerous if government did what was intended of it, clearly stated in the preamble of the constitution... The original constitution only taxed property... For that they gave property greater protection, and the rich greater say in government... When they began to tax income they did not remove from property and wealth any ability to influence government, nor did they remove a single property right... Working people have been losing ground ever since...

0 Replies

@cruise95,

Quite a taxing subject!

One thing about property tax............ Property leads to poverty. Between the two, only property can be taxed with some conviction.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;168933 wrote:

One thing about property tax............ Property leads to poverty. Between the two, only property can be taxed with some conviction.

Oh, that's why we in Denmark has so few homeless people, we live in homes stuffed with property.

I can't see how your anology can fit into a real world, other than an imaginative world.

2 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;168984 wrote:

Oh, that's why we in Denmark has so few homeless people, we live in homes stuffed with property.

I can't see how your anology can fit into a real world, other than an imaginative world.

Hi Hex

Thanks for your remarks.

Your association with denmark gives me an opportunity to perhaps test my hypothesis.

But, at this instance, i think there is a misunderstanding. The meaning of 'property' which i use is of 'land', 'estate', 'ranch', 'plots' etc.

The concept is that a patch of land can be owned by an human being works within a paradigm of acceptance of tradition, laws, ownership etc. However, there are other paradigms that exists and had existed apart from the present form economic models a given society follows.

You, i think refer to 'property' as 'things', or materials having some value to it. Thats just fine. We have to deal with the English language with all its disadvantages.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;169121 wrote:

But, at this instance, i think there is a misunderstanding. The meaning of 'property' which i use is of 'land', 'estate', 'ranch', 'plots' etc.

The concept is that a patch of land can be owned by an human being works within a paradigm of acceptance of tradition, laws, ownership etc. However, there are other paradigms that exists and had existed apart from the present form economic models a given society follows.

You, i think refer to 'property' as 'things', or materials having some value to it. Thats just fine. We have to deal with the English language with all its disadvantages.

Sorry for the misconception, please allow me to repharse my statemen.

I find property tax as an excelent motivation for doing something in relation to society ..be it getting a job, or offering jobs, contrary if there were no property tax, people would sink into their own little world, isolate themselves from society.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;169131 wrote:

Sorry for the misconception, please allow me to repharse my statemen.

I find property tax as an excelent motivation for doing something in relation to society ..be it getting a job, or offering jobs, contrary if there were no property tax, people would sink into their own little world, isolate themselves from society.

Oh, we are on the same wave. Which is what i meant initially. There was a preceding discussion on doing away with property tax and imposing sales tax. And also some reference to poor people.

One needs to understand that ownership of land, and the land usage is the only fixed instrument of revenue. Land as a resource is the source of 'wealth' - a loaded term in western countries. So, in the present scenario, and especially in democarcies, land revenue tax is the only instrument for capital depending on the quality and utilisation of the soil or ground of that particular land.

This source of capital has to be taxed appropriately, one reason being that all other sources are not fixed or are fluctuating.

The propaganda of the rich and wealthy is thus illogical, and unreasonable, and stems out of sheer selfishness and greed.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

I think one can be extremely wealthy without owning a square metre of land. Land is of course very valuable in, say, cities such as New York or Tokyo. However land is only of value if one can derive an income from it.

2 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;168984 wrote:

Oh, that's why we in Denmark has so few homeless people, we live in homes stuffed with property.

I can't see how your anology can fit into a real world, other than an imaginative world.

What do you make of this?

Quote:

In a previous article-"Denmark: Potemkin Village"-I documented the downside to Denmark. Despite its reputation as a showcase of political utopia, 40 percent of its adult population live on government transfer income, full-time, all-year. A little more than a third of these people are pensioners and the rest are working age. About one third of the people who actually hold a job work for the government or government-owned companies. The effective tax level is around 70 percent, not the 50 percent that is usually reported (the lower figure comes about by disregarding the effects of the sales tax and excise taxes).

Denmark: A Case Study in Social Democracy

Here's something more positive:

Quote:

[/SIZE][/SIZE]Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state,[4] ranks as having the world's highest level of income equality.

0 Replies

@cruise95,

Reconstructo
In Denmark, tax are rampart, but our welfare is somewhat good, though with this crisis we have scutinized our welfare and said ..OMG!!!! Those who are filthy ritch in the first place does not need a child welfare chenque!!!! ..which many has already stated decades ago.

With too much prosperity, people becomes lazy ..incompetent and stupid, we have some of the worlds most inefficient school educational system, even the politicians who have spoken pro public schools, are sending their very own kids into private schools.

Our security of hygine in public hospitals sucks, our food security sucks ..old foods are found all the time, people get sick ..some die. Hoax doctors can scam people.

..most danes complain about our lovely .."**** COUNTRY!!!" (even said for almost a decade on goverment TV)

0 Replies

@exile,

exile;169699 wrote:

I think one can be extremely wealthy without owning a square metre of land. Land is of course very valuable in, say, cities such as New York or Tokyo. However land is only of value if one can derive an income from it.

Property is wealth, and it is wealth that should be taxed... It should be made to work, and it should be thought of as a positve evil...Other than limiting the members of the house of representatives, the taxing of income has been the greatest disaster, because it served to protect property from taxes...

Labor is taxed which means each worker has to work harder to make enough to survive, which forces the price of labor down...

Property, which once had to make a profit to pay taxes or be sold can now be held for a long period of time for speculation, which raises its speculative value...

To have property, and the rights associated with property people with short wages must borrow at high rates to have property at inflated prices, all serving to empoverish the working people still further...

The government subsidizes these high rates on inflated value property by making home interest deductable... What is the effect of this but to spread the cost of usary over the whole population whether owners of property or not...

The money the poor are deprived of through taxes has been turned over to the rich... They have been encouraged to inflate the price of property, and to charge high rates of interest to own property... The last thing this country needs is more tax on the poor unless the object is to hasten revolution... You have to tax the wealth were it is, and it is not in the hands of the working people...

0 Replies

Sales taxes instead of property taxes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know