Support NeoGAF

[GoldenEye 007]

EDIT- (Misunderstood) It's the state of the buyer.

In KY, I get taxed on most of my purchases, but that might have to do with Amazon being down the street from me.

I do agree that maybe the Internet model is up for review(the governments should be looked at first, however) and I agree with the tax in which the store has a physical presence, but I'm not sure about any other scenario.

I mean, if a place you are buying from uses no resources in the state that you are in, why should that state have the right to tax that purchase? Yes, I understand that Internet sales affect brick and mortars, but the Internet model arguably is a superior system than traditional sales - why should anyone be punished for that?

But I guess I'm just wary of this because people are so quick to push new taxes and increases, yet there is no similar push/consensus for the government to review itself and ensure that income is being used in the most efficient manner to make that tax revenue really stretch itself before asking for more money from everyone else.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Dude I am not even American and I know some of that info is not only misleading, it's incorrect.

For example, with the 55% taxation on estates over a million, you're only taxing everything over a million, so if your estate is worth exactly 1million, you're not getting taxed. If it's worth 1.1 million, you're getting taxt on 100k.

I find it sad that you're not American, yet you know the difference between a marginal tax rate and the average/effective tax rate. Everyone else screaming bloody marry about the link posted are most likely American and are totally clueless. :lol :lol

 

[PantherLotus]

It's pretty simple, folks. We either raise revenues or cut spending. Frankly, we'll have to do a lot of each if we want to get right.

In the coming decades of aging baby boomers (The Worst Generation™) will continue to assert their power at the ballot box by voting for their own benefits (medicare) at the expense of the younger generations--taxes.

It's coming. This year, next year, years to come. I would look at as many possible ways of increasing revenues as possible, and hopefully as few sales taxes as possible. Sales taxes disproportionately affect those with the least.

 

[Javaman]

EDIT- (Misunderstood) It's the state of the buyer.

In KY, I get taxed on most of my purchases, but that might have to do with Amazon being down the street from me.

How would your state know if you bought something from another state? It's going to be totally up to the seller to keep track of and a royal pain to keep up with.

There are going to be a ton of mom and pop stores abusing the hell out of this if it passes either through lazyness or desire for an extra 7% +/- of profit. :lol

 

[PantherLotus]

But I guess I'm just wary of this because people are so quick to push new taxes and increases, yet there is no similar push/consensus for the government to review itself and ensure that income is being used in the most efficient manner to make that tax revenue really stretch itself before asking for more money from everyone else.

Where would you cut spending?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Wait, what? How does that make any sense? Shouldn't the tax rate go up when you earn more money, or just have a flat tax rate? Crazy Americans.

I should correct myself: The FICA tax encompasses both social security and medicare/medicaid.

Medicare/Medicaid is a flat tax, but only income under the social security wage base is taxed for social security. Hence, you pay into the social security and medicare/medicaid funds for income under the social security wage base, but only into the medicare/medicaid funds for income over the social security wage base.

In other words, social security has two tax brackets, and the higher bracket is 0%.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Sales taxes disproportionately affect those with the least.

Really depends on what you tax. Low rates for food, drinks, electricity, water, clothes and all other needed things. Higher rates for luxeries like electronics, entertainment, etc.

 

[Davidion]

You want to protect US citizens? Let's cut spending and/or increase taxes so we're actually paying for the services/goods the government provides us. And if we cut spending, don't even think of making your priorities for cuts be in education, veterans benefits and services, training, employment, and social services: Combined, they don't even make up 10% of our budget.

If you really want to cut spending, you're going to need to touch social security, medicare/medicaid, and the DoD + Department of Homeland Security, which, combined with the interest on the nation debt, account for more than two thirds of the federal budget.

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid costs i nparticular have been outpacing economic growth for a while now. Simple changes for the three programs:

#1: Remove the social security wage base, making all income taxable for social security. As it currently stands, there are two brackets for social security: Income under the social security wage base (about $106,000 last year), and income over the social security wage base. The first bracket has a higher marginal rate than the second bracket. That means everyone who made more than $106,000 last year had a lower tax rate than everyone who made less than $106,000. If we removed the social security wage base and had a flat tax for social security, like medicare/medicaid, over 95% of the insolvency problems the social security fund is facing (due to the large population of the baby boomer generation) will be funded for. and unless you make more than $106,000 , it wouldn't affect your taxes at all.

#2: Health care reform: We already got this done: The cost curve should be significantly flatter over the next few decades, allowing for the economy to (hopefully) outpace health care costs in growth. Further reforms can be made (like single payer) to reduce costs even further.

#3: The US has, by far, military supremacy among all countries. And all but one or two of the next 15 or so largest powers are our allies. We could reduce the military budget by 33-50% without worry. And refocus our efforts on small operations against guerrila fighters rather than large scale military standoffs with nations (further reducing costs).


Furthermore, we can close some tax loopholes (~$200B in lost revenue per year, IIRC), let the bush tax cuts expire, and, yes, increase taxes, even if it were only to the levels under clinton or Reagan (~1-2% change for the average household iirc)

You're looking at trillions of dollars of savings here, and note that outside of refactoring and shrinking the military industrial complex, none of it involves reducing benefits or services to the people. It's almost all administrative changes.

What's kind of funny is that all this hurpy-durp big government tax talk came from the topic of state taxes being levied on sales that are less likely to be daily essential purchases for the average family.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

It boggles my mind that Congress hasn't removed the SS cap. That would eliminate all funding gaps. :lol

 

[JGS]

How would your state know if you bought something from another state? It's going to be totally up to the seller to keep track of and a royal pain to keep up with.

There are going to be a ton of mom and pop stores abusing the hell out of this if it passes either through lazyness or desire for an extra 7% +/- of profit. :lol

The state would know just like they know when Walmart sells something.

The seller would have to keep up with it but only at the transaction time. If they can keep up with shipping to a million different zip codes, they can keep up with taxes to 50 states.

I thought most internet companies already charge sales tax when they are based n their home state. That's what the catalogue places do at least.

 

[PantherLotus]

Really depends on what you tax. Low rates for food, drinks, electricity, water, clothes and all other needed things. Higher rates for luxeries like electronics, entertainment, etc.

But you're agreeing that sales taxes are harder on poor people, right? (because that's not up for debate)

I'm pretty much against sales taxes on any essential good, so I think we agree anyway. That said, I think electronics and entertainment are essential goods, too. I'd put sales taxes on so-called sinful goods, like tobacco, porn, gambling, and alcohol.

 

[ClosingADoor]

But you're agreeing that sales taxes are harder on poor people, right? (because that's not up for debate)

I'm pretty much against sales taxes on any essential good, so I think we agree anyway. That said, I think electronics and entertainment are essential goods, too. I'd put sales taxes on so-called sinful goods, like tobacco, porn, gambling, and alcohol.

You can life fine without an iPod or 40" tv. And people who can afford that, can also afford that added few percent. Of course stuff like tobacco and alcohol could also be taxed more, don't you do that already to 'discourage' use?

Please keep in mind I'm European and we pay 19% sales tax on everything here (except essential stuff like food, that's 3-6% if I remember correctly, and a shitload on alcohol, tobacco and gas). So I am more used to higher taxes like this then Americans.

 

[neojubei]

I think they need to fix their spending habits before they charge more taxes.

This. I am starting to wonder where all the tax money is going to now. The easy answer is our roads and such but it seems like every state keeps running out and trying to get more money from everywhere. Next we will be taxed for walking into a store or using the ATM.

 

[JGS]

Where would you cut spending?

Every single department of the US government has wasteful spending. You could cut 5% out of every department easy.

The problem is that government is not run like a business nor should it be. However, the goal for each department is to get more money, not find ways to save.

This leaves Congress to figure out what to do and they do not understand the concept of looking for the devil in the details. In fact they stink at it and can't stick to it anyway.

 

[PantherLotus]

You can life fine without an iPod or 40" tv. And people who can afford that, can also afford that added few percent. Of course stuff like tobacco and alcohol could also be taxed more, don't you do that already to 'discourage' use?

Please keep in mind I'm European and we pay 19% sales tax on everything here (except essential stuff like food, that's 3-6% if I remember correctly, and a shitload on alcohol, tobacco and gas). So I am more used to higher taxes like this then Americans.

That's a good question which you didn't ask, actually. I think the internet, tv, and phones are essential in this economy for maintaining and pursuing jobs and professional growth.

Regarding those so-called sin taxes, the answer is yes--they're already taxed to hell.

 

[PantherLotus]

Every single department of the US government has wasteful spending. You could cut 5% out of every department easy.

The problem is that government is not run like a business nor should it be. However, the goal for each department is to get more money, not find ways to save.

This leaves Congress to figure out what to do and they do not understand the concept of looking for the devil in the details. In fact they stink at it and can't stick to it anyway.

You don't know where they should cut spending?



And you made up that "5%."

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Where would you cut spending?

I'm not sure, I haven't done much research admittedly.

But I would start with a review on the existing programs and offices. See how inefficient they are and start working from there - it may not be much(or maybe it is, but administrative overhead needs to be reduced). Determine the priorities of government, in my opinion at the very basic level infrastructure, defense, education, energy, environment, and a couple of other categories and work around fulfilling those.

Broken programs I can just see at a distance - the court and prison system and the war on drugs, oh and the welfare system seems like trash too. Also, cut defense and get the hell out of places we have no business being in. Figure out how to keep and bring back jobs lost overseas like in the manufacturing and technology. It's a start(and easier said than done)... But then politics/corporations get in the way and the country continues to go to shit and nothing useful happens.

I'd also love to know what percentage of the tax dollar actually goes to fulfilling the job it was meant to do.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Every single department of the US government has wasteful spending. You could cut 5% out of every department easy.

The problem is that government is not run like a business nor should it be. However, the goal for each department is to get more money, not find ways to save.

This leaves Congress to figure out what to do and they do not understand the concept of looking for the devil in the details. In fact they stink at it and can't stick to it anyway.

Entitlement programs and defense spending take up the majority of the budget. Eliminating $100 billion a year on defense spending and streamlining/modernizing SS/Medicare could make a huge difference. Also, removing the SS cap.

 

[JGS]

You don't know where they should cut spending?



And you made up that "5%."

I din't make it up. It was a statement of opinion that I will stick to unless proven wrong.:lol

I don't get paid to figure out where they should cut spending. Nor do you get paid to say what's justified spending or cuts...Or do you?

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm not sure, I haven't done much research admittedly.

But I would start with a review on the existing programs and offices. See how inefficient they are and start working from there - it may not be much(or maybe it is, but administrative overhead needs to be reduced). Determine the priorities of government, in my opinion at the very basic level infrastructure, defense, education, energy, environment, and a couple of other categories and work around fulfilling those.

Broken programs I can just see at a distance - the court and prison system and the war on drugs, oh and the welfare system seems like trash too. Also, cut defense and get the hell out of places we have no business being in. Figure out how to keep and bring back jobs lost overseas like in the manufacturing and technology. It's a start(and easier said than done)... But then politics/corporations get in the way and the country continues to go to shit and nothing useful happens.

I'd also love to know what percentage of the tax dollar actually goes to fulfilling the job it was meant to do.

Most people that blurt out, "WASTEFUL SPENDING!" aren't really sure where or what they're talking about.

http://www.usaspending.gov/explore?carryfilters=on

You're on the right track, but think about the implications of cutting spending where we need to the most:

1. Defense
2. Health Care
3. The War on Drugs™

No, you can't cut education spending, regardless of what you're being told. America's post-secondary education system is still the finest in the world and we absolutely cannot alter that standing, at least in the same breath as acknowledging that our manufacturing jobs are probably gone for good and the rise of China and India as consumption economies threatens the cultural importance of American exports.

 

[Zhengi]

Yeah, I'm loving everyone in the thread saying how "unfair" this is. These are the same debates people made during the heyday of music-sharing services. Just because everyone else is breaking the law doesn't make it right, and the government needs to find some way to fill in for all the lost revenue.

Right, cause the government should only be about spending our tax money recklessly with whatever they want and when they can't foot the bill with what we already give them, they have to come back to us to ask for more. It's like a kid that doesn't know when to quit spending when we give them an allowance and they cry and cry for more when they have no more. It's called fiscal responsibility. Learn it and cherish it.

 

[PantherLotus]

I din't make it up. It was a statement of opinion that I will stick to unless proven wrong.:lol

I don't get paid to figure out where they should cut spending. Nor do you get paid to say what's justified spending or cuts...Or do you?

Just to keep you honest:

Every single department of the US government has wasteful spending. You could cut 5% out of every department easy

How easy is it, big guy? Easy to say something is an opinion after making a blanket assertion, isn't it?

 

[PantherLotus]

Right, cause the government should only be about spending our tax money recklessly with whatever they want and when they can't foot the bill with what we already give them, they have to come back to us to ask for more. It's like a kid that doesn't know when to quit spending when we give them an allowance and they cry and cry for more when they have no more. It's called fiscal responsibility. Learn it and cherish it.

How is the government spending recklessly, Zhengi? Where would you cut spending?

This exercise will get pretty tired pretty quickly, but you guys need to think about what you're saying before blurting out these political memes. You can say "fiscal responsiblity," but what does it mean to you?

You say, "learn it and cherish it," but that must mean you have a pretty good handle on what it means--and how we can balance our books. I'd love to hear your opinion on how we can increase revenue and decrease spending.

 

[jobber]

fuck that

i ain't payin shit


they (VA) fuckin tax satellite radio subscription

SATELLITE RADIO SUBSCRIPTION. It's not a fucking satellite in my state yet we have to pay taxes for it. 200 people emailed the representative for my town to oppose it and that fucker still voted yes plz. What kind of backward ass shit is this?!?

 

[Javaman]

The state would know just like they know when Walmart sells something.

The seller would have to keep up with it but only at the transaction time. If they can keep up with shipping to a million different zip codes, they can keep up with taxes to 50 states.

I thought most internet companies already charge sales tax when they are based n their home state. That's what the catalogue places do at least.

Walmarts have to keep up since they have locations in (almost?) every state and are a large corporation. Smaller companies won't have as much oversight. I'd imagine it would be totally up to them to report the sales to other states. If they did avoid paying other states and got audited by their own state they would have to explain where a lot of the taxes they collected had "dissappeared" to. I guess it's not too much different then what is going on now. Current companies can claim that local sales were actually internet sales if they wanted to keep the sales tax for themselves. The new laws would make it easier to get away with it though. Either way is playing with fire big time but some people may decide the extra income is worth the risk.

 

[Nerevar]

Right, cause the government should only be about spending our tax money recklessly with whatever they want and when they can't foot the bill with what we already give them, they have to come back to us to ask for more. It's like a kid that doesn't know when to quit spending when we give them an allowance and they cry and cry for more when they have no more. It's called fiscal responsibility. Learn it and cherish it.

:lol

sounds like someone's been watching Fox News!

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Most people that blurt out, "WASTEFUL SPENDING!" aren't really sure where or what they're talking about.

http://www.usaspending.gov/explore?carryfilters=on

You're on the right track, but think about the implications of cutting spending where we need to the most:

1. Defense
2. Health Care
3. The War on Drugs™

No, you can't cut education spending, regardless of what you're being told. America's post-secondary education system is still the finest in the world and we absolutely cannot alter that standing, at least in the same breath as acknowledging that our manufacturing jobs are probably gone for good and the rise of China and India as consumption economies threatens the cultural importance of American exports.

I never said it would be easy and I never said we should cut education. In fact, at the beginning of the thread, I suggested a program be created(ironic, I know) that would probe into the various government programs/offices and determine what the tax dollar is really doing and see if there is anything that can be done before asking for more money from the populous. Then you redistribute the tax revenue to fulfill short programs, if any, then after that is exhausted, you start asking for more.

I'd accept a tax increase to pay for such a program long enough to issue a report after, oh, 5-7 years. I say this because I don't know if anyone really truly knows if there is excessive waste or inefficiencies in government programs from the federal down to the state level and what effect altering such programs would have - for better or worse. But again, I'm no expert.

 

[slidewinder]

But I guess I'm just wary of this because people are so quick to push new taxes and increases

Have you not paid attention to anything that happened in the US in the last 40 years or so?

 

[JoeBoy101]

:lol

sounds like someone's been paying attention to government spending and appropriation bills!

Fixed.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Let me just say when I see the Welfare People walking through Newark, there's no effing way I think they should get a couple bucks out of everything I buy from Amazon.

Don't forget the crackheads and that GOD BLESS YOU guy in front of the Gateway Center.

 

[Zhengi]

How is the government spending recklessly, Zhengi? Where would you cut spending?

This exercise will get pretty tired pretty quickly, but you guys need to think about what you're saying before blurting out these political memes. You can say "fiscal responsiblity," but what does it mean to you?

You say, "learn it and cherish it," but that must mean you have a pretty good handle on what it means--and how we can balance our books. I'd love to hear your opinion on how we can increase revenue and decrease spending.

It means stop spending on little small pet projects and earmarks that Senators and Congressmen put on their bills. You know, all that pork that gives them money. For example, the bridge in Alaska that leads to one small village. Things like that are not a priority and even though the amounts might be small in comparison to other budget cuts, they quickly add up and help to save.

So no, you are wrong that the government is fiscal responsible in any way. There is government waste going on. Not every program they run is the most efficiently managed. If so, then your definition of fiscal responsibility must be skewed backwards since the government is obviously borrowing MORE money then they have and running up deficits... Really, how do you say the government is fiscally responsible when they have $12 trillion in debt?

 

[AstroLad]

Don't forget the crackheads and that GOD BLESS YOU guy in front of the Gateway Center.

Hey I like that guy. :lol

 

[JGS]

Entitlement programs and defense spending take up the majority of the budget. Eliminating $100 billion a year on defense spending and streamlining/modernizing SS/Medicare could make a huge difference. Also, removing the SS cap.

No one's arguing that (At least I'm not), it's just a matter of how likely it is.

 

[borghe]

ugghh. kill state sales tax (and county, municipal, stadium, wildlife, etc) and implement a national VAT. Life would be easier, we could eliminate the stupid Sales/Use tax line from State tax forms, and in practically ALL cases it would be trivial to determine data on where purchases were made and how much tax was owed to a state.

I mean I know it will never happen. Too much bullshit is usually bundled into state and local sales taxes. And so we continue with this ridiculous shit (coming from a consumer and former business owner dealing with sales tax bullshit)

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Have you not paid attention to anything that happened in the US in the last 40 years or so?

You clearly took me out of context. All I'm saying is to review to see if the tax income is being as efficient as possible in appropriate programs before asking for more money. I really don't see what's wrong with doing that.

 

[Gaborn]

Where would you cut spending?

Where shouldn't we cut spending? We should, as a start, raise the retirement age to 72 or so (at a minimum). We should pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and all of our bases around the world. We should dismantle the DOE and let states set their own education policy at their own expense. We should legalize and allow a federal sales tax on marijuana. We should pull out of the UN and end our obligations to that organization. We should reduce barriers to free trade around the world. We should end the trade embargo with Cuba and give Americans access to a large supply of cheap sugar cane.

Those are just some things off the top of my head. I understand "should" is not the same as "will" or even that it's practical in the current political environment or even popular on all counts with GAF.

 

[victreeb3l]

In NY we already pay sales tax on internet purchases. :|

Yeah, and I'm pissed off that others don't have to either. I thought that was the norm too.

Hopefully this passes.

 

[Gallbaro]

But you're agreeing that sales taxes are harder on poor people, right? (because that's not up for debate)

I'm pretty much against sales taxes on any essential good, so I think we agree anyway. That said, I think electronics and entertainment are essential goods, too. I'd put sales taxes on so-called sinful goods, like tobacco, porn, gambling, and alcohol.

A sales tax would actually be perfect for the long term prospects of the economy. The economy needs to achieve a better balance between consumption and savings and the best tool at the hands of the government (if you think the only way to do it is to increase the size of the government) is to increase the cost of buying something.

Of course the best way of balancing the economy and the government deficit is just to shrink the damn thing, remove the massive web of subsidies to thousands of entities that would be an excellent way of reducing consumption.

My ideal would be to remove the corporate income tax, raise the income tax and a VAT.
Edit: And an obnoxiously high Death Tax, at a level above some arbitrary but universal debt level, such as median student loan debt.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Where shouldn't we cut spending? We should, as a start, raise the retirement age to 72 or so (at a minimum).

Let's go with 70. Its a nice round number.

Also, you won't need to raise it too much after legalizing da' hemp. The sin tax, stateside, on that alone should save California's budget.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

My ideal would be to remove the corporate income tax, raise the income tax and a VAT.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Monroeski]

It means stop spending on little small pet projects and earmarks that Senators and Congressmen put on their bills. You know, all that pork that gives them money. For example, the bridge in Alaska that leads to one small village. Things like that are not a priority and even though the amounts might be small in comparison to other budget cuts, they quickly add up and help to save.

So no, you are wrong that the government is fiscal responsible in any way. There is government waste going on. Not every program they run is the most efficiently managed. If so, then your definition of fiscal responsibility must be skewed backwards since the government is obviously borrowing MORE money then they have and running up deficits... Really, how do you say the government is fiscally responsible when they have $12 trillion in debt?

Debt alone in no way signifies that a given organization isn't fiscally responsible. Go look at any company's financial statements if you think otherwise. Wal-Mart has $40 or $50 billion in debt and only like $10 billion in cash IIRC.

Not that I'm arguing that they ARE very fiscally responsible, of course, I just don't like when people say OMG DEBT like it's always bad.

Even the deficit isn't necessarily always bad; for instance, if I wanted to build a factory I would have a massive deficit for the first few (or many) years, while I'm paying off the facilities, before the income starts coming in. The problem the US government has is that, as far as I know at least, they don't really have a plan to stop running deficits any time soon. There is no "the building is paid off and now the income rolls in" point. For a long time now they have been spending during recessions to spur growth but they haven't been saving in boom periods to counteract it.

 

[Gallbaro]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

You want jobs? Higher Savings? Higher reinvestment rates? Lesser wealth disparity? That tax formula is the best way.

 

[avatar299]

This. I am starting to wonder where all the tax money is going to now. The easy answer is our roads and such but it seems like every state keeps running out and trying to get more money from everywhere. Next we will be taxed for walking into a store or using the ATM.

On a state level most of it goes to bonds and pensions. In fact a sales tax on amazon will probably generate very little money for the things most people claim to care about.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Hey I like that guy. :lol

How messed up is it that we BOTH know who that guy is?:lol

He's so annoying and he somehow always winds up next to you. He's like a goddamn ninja.

 

[PantherLotus]

It means stop spending on little small pet projects and earmarks that Senators and Congressmen put on their bills. You know, all that pork that gives them money. For example, the bridge in Alaska that leads to one small village. Things like that are not a priority and even though the amounts might be small in comparison to other budget cuts, they quickly add up and help to save.

So no, you are wrong that the government is fiscal responsible in any way. There is government waste going on. Not every program they run is the most efficiently managed. If so, then your definition of fiscal responsibility must be skewed backwards since the government is obviously borrowing MORE money then they have and running up deficits... Really, how do you say the government is fiscally responsible when they have $12 trillion in debt?

I did not assert that the government is "fiscal responsible" or anything close. I said (or suggested) that it's easy for you to say "STOP SPENDING!" but hard for you to say what they should stop spending on. I stand by that as you proved with your only example being one of Sarah Palin's pet issues ("The Bridge to Nowhere").

Can you think of ANY other examples of what spending you would cut?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

You want jobs? Higher Savings? Higher reinvestment rates? Lesser wealth disparity? That tax formula is the best way.

By removing corporate income tax? And saving is good and all, but consumption contributes 70% of our GDP.

 

[JGS]

Walmarts have to keep up since they have locations in (almost?) every state and are a large corporation. Smaller companies won't have as much oversight. I'd imagine it would be totally up to them to report the sales to other states. If they did avoid paying other states and got audited by their own state they would have to explain where a lot of the taxes they collected had "dissappeared" to. I guess it's not too much different then what is going on now. Current companies can claim that local sales were actually internet sales if they wanted to keep the sales tax for themselves. The new laws would make it easier to get away with it though. Either way is playing with fire big time but some people may decide the extra income is worth the risk.

Quicken and others already have programs that can track that. There will be bugs as a new plan is implemented as always, but for the most part most transaction generate a huge paper trail that makes t difficult to fake purchase loacations. It would be cheaper to add the tax - especially since it's not really costing the seller.

 

[JGS]

Just to keep you honest:

I'm always honest.

How easy is it, big guy? Easy to say something is an opinion after making a blanket assertion, isn't it?

It is easy.

Wow, IMO that was easy to say...

 

[avatar299]

My ideal would be to remove the corporate income tax, raise the income tax and a VAT.
Edit: And an obnoxiously high Death Tax, at a level above some arbitrary but universal debt level, such as median student loan debt.

Slightly lower the corporate tax, eliminate the income tax and replace it with a 20-30% flat tax.

I like your plan to though

 

[Gaborn]

Let's go with 70. Its a nice round number.

Also, you won't need to raise it too much after legalizing da' hemp. The sin tax, stateside, on that alone should save California's budget.

Plus ending the federal war on marijuana (as a start, other drugs hopefully following quickly) should also save money in addition to the tax revenue generation. although it's worth noting FDR would probably have the retirement age for SS benefits around 77 or so, he set it at 65 originally because that was the life expectancy for a man at the time.