15 years? I've reconsiders some stuff in well under that time

"Mitt Romney isn't pro-choice or anti-choice, he's multiple choice."
--Ted Kennedy

Anyone that thinks a 25% national sales tax is a good idea is either stinking rich or blissfully ignorant.

Marcus Aurelius: Anyone that thinks a 25% national sales tax is a good idea is either stinking rich or blissfully ignorant.

Can't it be both?

IIRC Mitt always states he would not support anything that increases the burden on middle-class families. And I agree with Stealth, I have changed my mind a lot in the last 15 months. Opinions change, get over it.

nekom: Marcus Aurelius: Anyone that thinks a 25% national sales tax is a good idea is either stinking rich or blissfully ignorant.

Can't it be both?

Exhibit A: Mitt Romney

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 15 years? I've reconsiders some stuff in well under that time

You know what's funny? The math didn't change. The equation still results in a tax reduction for the wealthy and lower revenue compared to our current system. It's still full of Fail. I just can't wait until we get to school vouchers, so we can explain how a $2,000 check won't get you into a school with $20,000 tuition, but it will knock $2,000 off the cost for people who can already afford to send their kids there.

God, I love rearguing the same goddamn thing every 4 years.

Marcus Aurelius: Anyone that thinks a 25% national sales tax is a good idea is either stinking rich or blissfully ignorant.

why? Maybe 25 is a little high but I really like the idea of a national sales tax. Show people what they are really paying and maybe just maybe people will stop asking for "free" stuff. And it would take some of the sting out of watching people walk across the border.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And it would take some of the sting out of watching people walk across the border.

Even if there is a national sales tax (say 25%), that doesn't mean there wouldn't also be a state sales tax. So, people would still walk across the state border for the states with lower sales taxes, because it might mean the difference between 33% sales taxes (state and federal) and 25% sales taxes (federal only, for states where there is no sales tax, i.e. Delaware, Vermont, Alaska, Oregon and Montana).

RexTalionis: Even if there is a national sales tax (say 25%), that doesn't mean there wouldn't also be a state sales tax. So, people would still walk across the state border for the states with lower sales taxes, because it might mean the difference between 33% sales taxes (state and federal) and 25% sales taxes (federal only, for states where there is no sales tax, i.e. Delaware, Vermont, Alaska, Oregon and Montana).

I meant the countries' border not a state's border. Competition between states is healthy

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I really like the idea of a national sales tax

I really like the idea of not screwing people who spend 110% of their income while giving an income tax break to those that can get by on 30% of their income.

How do they spend more than 100%? Well, they borrow because they have to. Do you even listen to the math dorks who have run the numbers and explain how such a system would devastate people at or near the poverty level. You want them to go from 0% income taxes to 25% national sales tax on top of the state tax. What happens when you take away 25+% from $25,000? They will break into your home and steal your shiat to cover the shortfall. That's what.

You hope that people who can't afford things currently experience an even harder time making ends meet. That's very Christian of you.

Bubba-work: IIRC Mitt always states he would not support anything that increases the burden on middle-class families. And I agree with Stealth, I have changed my mind a lot in the last 15 months. Opinions change, get over it.

well, he said he's "absolutely" for banning the pill, IUD's and all forms of hormonal birth control. that might put a little squeeze on the ol' middle class.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 15 years? I've reconsiders some stuff in well under that time

Being an opportunist is not the same thing as changing one's mind.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: RexTalionis: Even if there is a national sales tax (say 25%), that doesn't mean there wouldn't also be a state sales tax. So, people would still walk across the state border for the states with lower sales taxes, because it might mean the difference between 33% sales taxes (state and federal) and 25% sales taxes (federal only, for states where there is no sales tax, i.e. Delaware, Vermont, Alaska, Oregon and Montana).

I meant the countries' border not a state's border. Competition between states is healthy

How the hell does that work? Both Canada and Mexico have sales taxes that are currently higher than the US sales tax. If we do levy a federal sales tax of 25%, Canada and Mexico sales taxes would be lower than the US. Wouldn't that encourage people to walk across the border?

Or did you mean illegal immigrants? Because you're willing to give yourself and everybody else a 25% sales tax increase just so you can feel better about undocumented aliens? This is like cutting off your face to spite your face.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Anyone that thinks a 25% national sales tax is a good idea is either stinking rich or blissfully ignorant.

And it would take some of the sting out of watching people walk across the border.

You do realize that some of us really don't give a fark, right? That we realize we were so God-damned lucky to be born here, a mere accident of time and geography...that we don't see it as some sort of ordained privilege we could be robbed of?

The sting of it...for farks sake.

NewportBarGuy: I really like the idea of not screwing people who spend 110% of their income while giving an income tax break to those that can get by on 30% of their income.

How do they spend more than 100%? Well, they borrow because they have to. Do you even listen to the math dorks who have run the numbers and explain how such a system would devastate people at or near the poverty level. You want them to go from 0% income taxes to 25% national sales tax on top of the state tax. What happens when you take away 25+% from $25,000? They will break into your home and steal your shiat to cover the shortfall. That's what.

You hope that people who can't afford things currently experience an even harder time making ends meet. That's very Christian of you.



Well I'm not Christian so I've got that going for me! And I never said it was perfect. I understand it is a regressive tax but I havent figured out a way to tax people that will not sign up to be rolls! If we're going to have an open border than how do we tax 'em? Plus how do you stop a populous from voting themselves benefits when they themselves do not have to pay for them??

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Anyone that thinks a 25% national sales tax is a good idea is either stinking rich or blissfully ignorant.

why? Maybe 25 is a little high but I really like the idea of a national sales tax. Show people what they are really paying and maybe just maybe people will stop asking for "free" stuff. And it would take some of the sting out of watching people walk across the border.

The "flat tax" is highly regressive, and shifts the tax burden from the wealthy (who can afford to pay more in taxes) to the poor (who are already in the hole). The "flat tax" increases taxation on anyone making less than $200k a year, and a massive increase on those that can afford it the least.

The wealthy in this country have been trying to get rid of the income tax since 1920, and the "flat tax" is just the latest attempt.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 15 years? I've reconsiders some stuff in well under that time

Remember that 15 years ago, he opposed the flat tax because it would increase the tax burden of the middle class. That fact is still true, the flat tax will increase the tax burden of taxpayers with incomes below $100K, so does that mean that Mitt now favors screwing the middle class? Let's see that on a campaign poster.

RexTalionis: Or did you mean illegal immigrants? Because you're willing to give yourself and everybody else a 25% sales tax increase just so you can feel better about undocumented aliens? This is like cutting off your face to spite your face.

Well time to put the cards on the table. If I paid the federal government only 25% I would be getting a tax break. That's the point of the flat tax. Take away Washington's power to control buying behavior and simplify the whole process.

vartian: You do realize that some of us really don't give a fark, right? That we realize we were so God-damned lucky to be born here, a mere accident of time and geography...that we don't see it as some sort of ordained privilege we could be robbed of?

The sting of it...for farks sake.


I know many people who were not so lucky. However they didn't break any laws to get here, and they are not breaking any laws staying here. How do you think that happened?! Were they god-damned lucky to be born with the ability to follow the law?!

The Stealth Hippopotamus: RexTalionis: Or did you mean illegal immigrants? Because you're willing to give yourself and everybody else a 25% sales tax increase just so you can feel better about undocumented aliens? This is like cutting off your face to spite your face.

Well time to put the cards on the table. If I paid the federal government only 25% I would be getting a tax break. That's the point of the flat tax. Take away Washington's power to control buying behavior and simplify the whole process.

Yeah? Big deal. It'll be a tax break for me, too. However, as noted, you're asking people who're basically barely getting by to cover your tax break for you.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit unconscionable.

Marcus Aurelius: The "flat tax" is highly regressive, and shifts the tax burden from the wealthy (who can afford to pay more in taxes) to the poor (who are already in the hole). The "flat tax" increases taxation on anyone making less than $200k a year, and a massive increase on those that can afford it the least.

The wealthy in this country have been trying to get rid of the income tax since 1920, and the "flat tax" is just the latest attempt.

And here I thought the rich dont pay taxes they have all those lobbyists, accounts, and lawyers to get them out of paying their "fair share". Nice to see people admitting that the rich are carrying anyone else.
And being this smart you also know that the rich do not just sit on their money. Right? Unless they are stuffing it into a mattress that money they are generating is being feed back into the market either in savings, venture capital or reinvestment into their companies.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I understand it is a regressive tax but I havent figured out a way to tax people that will not sign up to be rolls!

Yeah. It's the people picking strawberries for $3/hr under the table who are starving tax revenues. Let's go after them (screwing over poor US citizens as collateral damage) instead of asking why capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed lower than income derived from actual work.

The doublespeak is impressive.
Make $14,000 (*) as your sole income sweating for minimum wage full-time? Tax dodger.
Make $14,000 on top of your usual job by having your broker move your investments around? Oppressed.
Make $14,000 in subsidies for not growing a crop? Essential to the American economy.
Make $14,000 in 30 seconds through your business, but hide it in an off-shore shell company? Patriot.

(*) Before FICA, Medicare, sales taxes on purchases, etc,

But will it get me a cheaper pizza?

RexTalionis: Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit unconscionable.

It's probably not worth your time.

There are some people who simply believe that taxation is a mechanism for Justice, instead of just a mechanism to efficiently fund government operations.

For those people, no amount of math or destitution will change their minds. I'm surprised they haven't called for a capitation tax. Lord knows they would if it weren't explicitly forbidden.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And being this smart you also know that the rich do not just sit on their money. Right? Unless they are stuffing it into a mattress that money they are generating is being feed back into the market either in savings, venture capital or reinvestment into their companies.

They spend a much lower percentage of their income than poor or middle-class people do. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps we overestimated you.

By the way, "savings" doesn't help the economy move, especially when the banks aren't lending. "Spending" is good for business.

Functionally, we basically have a flat tax system now, thanks to all the exemptions and loopholes:


That's the problem.

RexTalionis: Yeah? Big deal. It'll be a tax break for me, too. However, as noted, you're asking people who're basically barely getting by to cover your tax break for you.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit unconscionable.


Give me a better way! But it must:

1) The vast majority of people must pay something
2) It must be unavoidable to illegal aliens
3) It must be easier than what we have now

I don't want to go with a hybrid system of low sales tax paired with an income tax. They would defeat the whole deal.

hillbillypharmacist: There are some people who simply believe that taxation is a mechanism for Justice, instead of just a mechanism to efficiently fund government operations.

This sentence doesn't make sense, inasmuch as many of us think that establishing "justice" should be a government operation. So the phrase "instead of" doesn't make sense.

hillbillypharmacist: There are some people who simply believe that taxation is a mechanism for Justice, instead of just a mechanism to efficiently fund government operations.

I just don't know how one can even imagine being able to fund a government from the people who are earning so little, even if you are able to extract a full 25% from them, it'll amount to be 25% of next to nothing.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 2) It must be unavoidable to illegal aliens

I notice you don't care if it's avoidable by the extremely wealthy, who actually have money. You're what they call a "useful idiot".

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If we're going to have an open border than how do we tax 'em? Plus how do you stop a populous from voting themselves benefits when they themselves do not have to pay for them??

The income derived from the business is taxed, that is how we tax 'em. The benefits that they don't pay for? How do you stop that? Well, I'll agree that we do have a segment of the population that does derive a benefit from either not working or working as little as possible. That is true. However, I don't think that is the biggest problem facing the budget or our society right now. Most of those benefits go to people who ARE working or who wish to work more. We provide these benefits in an effort to get them through a time where we are nowhere near full-employment. While some may argue it as a disincentive to work, I would like those people to find them jobs to supplant that govt source of funds that also allows them to have child care, if they have kids.

Each scenario for these people is different. Simply trying to apply a broad brush to it is myopic at best. I want more people working and less reliant on govt. assistance, but in order to do that we need to have more disposable income in the economy to generate more demand to create more jobs. If you can figure out how to do that, let me know. Lowering taxes for people who have plenty of disposable income while raising it on the vast majority who don't does not seem like a scenario that will help our economic condition. Stupid stimulus checks aren't the answer either. We need to get more money into the hands of more people who spend a higher percentage of their money in the local economy. The only way we can realistically do that is to lower taxes on those making less than $100,000, fix the housing mess which is a person's largest asset and source of wealth through home equity which gives them borrowing power. All of that can be done without a Flat Tax.

If we focus on things that get consumer confident and spending again by making them feel economically comfortable, the jobs will come. Prosperity will return, and we can get on with business as usual.

This won't happen because neither side wants the other to gain a perceived advantage with the voting public. It will continue in this way until someone slaps them in the face and makes them deal with each other. We can have tax cuts and spending cuts as long as you balance them out in a way that will increase consumer spending and tax revenues so we can also tackle the debt.

It can be done, but likely won't be. At least not for awhile.

DamnYankees: This sentence doesn't make sense, inasmuch as many of us think that establishing "justice" should be a government operation. So the phrase "instead of" doesn't make sense.

Justice is and ought to bea government operation with regard to criminal justice, hiring practices, business regulation, and elections. And some stuff I havent' thought of.

But in my mind, taxation should be about as justice-driven as military weapons systems. Meaning not at all. There's not a moral component to taxation, there is simply what works and what does not.

RexTalionis: hillbillypharmacist: There are some people who simply believe that taxation is a mechanism for Justice, instead of just a mechanism to efficiently fund government operations.

I just don't know how one can even imagine being able to fund a government from the people who are earning so little, even if you are able to extract a full 25% from them, it'll amount to be 25% of next to nothing.

Worse, many won't be able to pay it. They would face a choice between paying for food, water, electricity, and shelter, and sending a check to the IRS.

The result is that you don't get much of the funding you wanted, and now you've clogged the courts (and eventually the prisons) with "tax evaders". You can't get blood from turnips.

RexTalionis: I just don't know how one can even imagine being able to fund a government from the people who are earning so little, even if you are able to extract a full 25% from them, it'll amount to be 25% of next to nothing.

For them, it's more important that they feel the pain of taxation, than that taxation be useful or efficient.

chimp_ninja: They spend a much lower percentage of their income than poor or middle-class people do. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps we overestimated you.

By the way, "savings" doesn't help the economy move, especially when the banks aren't lending. "Spending" is good for business.

Functionally, we basically have a flat tax system now, thanks to all the exemptions and loopholes:


Make savings the new sexy tax dodge and the banks will have plenty to lend.

hillbillypharmacist: But in my mind, taxation should be about as justice-driven as military weapons systems. Meaning not at all. There's not a moral component to taxation, there is simply what works and what does not.

Military weapons systems are all about justice and morality. That's why we work so hard to invent accurate weapons and drones and stuff that doesn't kill people unnecessarily.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 15 years? I've reconsiders some stuff in well under that time

Have you changed your mind on absolutely every single position?

DamnYankees: Military weapons systems are all about justice and morality. That's why we work so hard to invent accurate weapons and drones and stuff that doesn't kill people unnecessarily.

Well then let's simply discard that analogy and move along to the idea that taxation should be based on efficiency and not some notion of fairness.

Just for some exo-America persepective. Canada has a 5% National Goods and Services Tax. It is not popular but it is a frigging huge money maker. It is the many reason are books are close to balanced today and how we recovered our AAA rating.

They key is to give lower income people a tax credit to offset the impact of the GST. It can be implemented in an equitable manner.

For instance. If you calculate the that the GST will cost a person making under $50K, $300 a year. You right them a cheque for that much a year. You right a bit less for people making $100K a year (maybe half) and so on. The US could probably balance the budget in 10 years with this type of tax and it doesn seem to negatively effect the economy (see New Zealand as another example where it was a huge success).

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And being this smart you also know that the rich do not just sit on their money. Right? Unless they are stuffing it into a mattress that money they are generating is being feed back into the market either in savings, venture capital or reinvestment into their companies.

See, that's the problem, no it's not. There's a ton of information out there showing exactly how the money had steadily been flowing out of the lower and middle class and into the upper class for the last few decades and you can't possibly have missed all of it. The money is NOT being fed back into the system, it's either being sat on or sent overseas but it sure as hell isn't "trickling down" despite all the assurances that it would.

Hi, I'm Adam Smith. Author of the bestselling book "The Wealth of Nations". Some economists and scholars have nicknamed me "The Father of Capitalism"

I'm against a flat tax and for a progressive tax structure.

So, when people argue for a "flat tax" or a "fair tax" or a "9 - 9 - 9" scheme, tell them to fark off.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: The "flat tax" is highly regressive, and shifts the tax burden from the wealthy (who can afford to pay more in taxes) to the poor (who are already in the hole). The "flat tax" increases taxation on anyone making less than $200k a year, and a massive increase on those that can afford it the least.

The wealthy in this country have been trying to get rid of the income tax since 1920, and the "flat tax" is just the latest attempt.

And here I thought the rich dont pay taxes they have all those lobbyists, accounts, and lawyers to get them out of paying their "fair share". Nice to see people admitting that the rich are carrying anyone else.
And being this smart you also know that the rich do not just sit on their money. Right? Unless they are stuffing it into a mattress that money they are generating is being feed back into the market either in savings, venture capital or reinvestment into their companies.

The smartest people I know have most of their wealth offshore, in order to avoid taxes altogether. They only pay taxes on the repatriated profits (which they minimize). All their expansion is happening in China, Brazil, and India.

hillbillypharmacist: DamnYankees: Military weapons systems are all about justice and morality. That's why we work so hard to invent accurate weapons and drones and stuff that doesn't kill people unnecessarily.

Well then let's simply discard that analogy and move along to the idea that taxation should be based on efficiency and not some notion of fairness.

Efficiency to do what? If you are trying to distribute justice, seems like that would be an ideal way.

chimp_ninja: I notice you don't care if it's avoidable by the extremely wealthy, who actually have money. You're what they call a "useful idiot".

If a guy who can come and go as he please and you never knew he was there can't avoid it than a guy with substantial holding and provable income doesnt have a prayer of dodging it.

NewportBarGuy: The income derived from the business is taxed, that is how we tax 'em. The benefits that they don't pay for? How do you stop that? Well, I'll agree that we do have a segment of the population that does derive a benefit from either not working or working as little as possible. That is true. However, I don't think that is the biggest problem facing the budget or our society right now. Most of those benefits go to people who ARE working or who wish to work more. We provide these benefits in an effort to get them through a time where we are nowhere near full-employment. While some may argue it as a disincentive to work, I would like those people to find them jobs to supplant that govt source of funds that also allows them to have child care, if they have kids.

Business dont get taxed. They add it into their cost of goods sold and pass it right on to the end user. And no it's not our biggest problem, or biggest problem is spending. By turning this conversation on it's head and talking about how to raise more money we have admitted defeat on the spending cuts that would actually save our economy. I would like a health economy where everyone can be employed and get off the dole. This can not be done by finding new and creative why of taxing ourselves. But this is a tax discussion, so I'm trying to stick to that.

NewportBarGuy: Each scenario for these people is different. Simply trying to apply a broad brush to it is myopic at best. I want more people working and less reliant on govt. assistance, but in order to do that we need to have more disposable income in the economy to generate more demand to create more jobs. If you can figure out how to do that, let me know. Lowering taxes for people who have plenty of disposable income while raising it on the vast majority who don't does not seem like a scenario that will help our economic condition. Stupid stimulus checks aren't the answer either. We need to get more money into the hands of more people who spend a higher percentage of their money in the local economy. The only way we can realistically do that is to lower taxes on those making less than $100,000, fix the housing mess which is a person's largest asset and source of wealth through home equity which gives them borrowing power. All of that can be done without a Flat Tax.

Sorry but we must have a myopic answer. We are talking about a national problem. Right now the percentages are not weighted to show cost of living. Taxing someone in Tulsa the same amount of money they tax someone in New York is just craziness, but we do it. And I'm glad to see you are ruling out stimulus checks! Why give the money to the government just to hand it back?!? I too would like to turn everything around and talking tax aint gonna do it. If you want to talk about turning things around talk about stabilizing Washington and getting someone on the national stage that has something positive to say!! How about that!

NewportBarGuy: If we focus on things that get consumer confident and spending again by making them feel economically comfortable, the jobs will come. Prosperity will return, and we can get on with business as usual.

preach on brother! ramen!

DamnYankees: Efficiency to do what? If you are trying to distribute justice, seems like that would be an ideal way.

The government needs money to operate. The ideal tax rate and mechanism is one that affects the economy the least while providing adequate funds for the government to do what the people demand of it.

No justice involved.

I think that headline is a bit Mitt-leading.