Great example of how the governments play into the corporations' hands
-
Please read this blog post. This explains the big reason why libertarians are considered "radical" and "extremist", when it's just classical liberalism. Federalism. Individualism. http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-06-16.asp[^]
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Please read this blog post. This explains the big reason why libertarians are considered "radical" and "extremist", when it's just classical liberalism. Federalism. Individualism. http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-06-16.asp[^]
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I'm on the fence with this one, actually. 1. Having a lot of movies set in one city does help that city become a tourist attraction. 2. More tourists leads to more tourism income 3. Some of that extra income is going to business that cater to tourists, which will now generate more tax income. 4. Some of it will likely go to state-run tourist sites/attractions (Parks departments and such), which will then need less funding from property taxes. (Yes, I know you're opposed to funding these via taxes, but that's the way it is). 5. More tourism, if managed properly, makes the area more desirable, both to businesses and residents, increasing property values and often standard of living. Depending on the actual numbers (I don't have a source), #3-5 might actually make up for the subsidies. I do see your point, that maybe this shouldn't be funded by taxpayer money. Maybe the tourism board should be set up as a non-profit, with business encouraged (Not forced or coerced) into donating, since it would benefit them the most.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'm on the fence with this one, actually. 1. Having a lot of movies set in one city does help that city become a tourist attraction. 2. More tourists leads to more tourism income 3. Some of that extra income is going to business that cater to tourists, which will now generate more tax income. 4. Some of it will likely go to state-run tourist sites/attractions (Parks departments and such), which will then need less funding from property taxes. (Yes, I know you're opposed to funding these via taxes, but that's the way it is). 5. More tourism, if managed properly, makes the area more desirable, both to businesses and residents, increasing property values and often standard of living. Depending on the actual numbers (I don't have a source), #3-5 might actually make up for the subsidies. I do see your point, that maybe this shouldn't be funded by taxpayer money. Maybe the tourism board should be set up as a non-profit, with business encouraged (Not forced or coerced) into donating, since it would benefit them the most.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Great retort, now this is debating. And you know what? I love your last sentence, because that's precisely how I'd go about it. If you keep the taxpayers out of it, more money is generated in the private sector, in that area, to spend at the new busineses! THAT is how you get an economy going. I like your points, and they're valid to a degree. That's how California works. But look what happened: they're bankrupt, partially because of this. As a side note: this is why states should focus more on taxing sales, and all governments should get rid of income taxes (even if they don't get rid of property tax). If they focus on that instead, then people would be keeping their money, and would be able to buy more. Businesses would actually thrive off of this, even if their sales were taxed. Because the private sector is taxed on incomes, have a harder time staying afloat. Property taxes are arguably not as bad, and akin to sales taxes actually. Income taxes are not. I have a better time handling property taxes than income taxes.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Great retort, now this is debating. And you know what? I love your last sentence, because that's precisely how I'd go about it. If you keep the taxpayers out of it, more money is generated in the private sector, in that area, to spend at the new busineses! THAT is how you get an economy going. I like your points, and they're valid to a degree. That's how California works. But look what happened: they're bankrupt, partially because of this. As a side note: this is why states should focus more on taxing sales, and all governments should get rid of income taxes (even if they don't get rid of property tax). If they focus on that instead, then people would be keeping their money, and would be able to buy more. Businesses would actually thrive off of this, even if their sales were taxed. Because the private sector is taxed on incomes, have a harder time staying afloat. Property taxes are arguably not as bad, and akin to sales taxes actually. Income taxes are not. I have a better time handling property taxes than income taxes.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Hey, I may not subscribe to the Libertarian agenda, but I'm not die-hard against it either. I consider myself independent, as I pick and choose the parts of each philosophy that I most agree with. That's how I vote, too. I find a list of the policy positions of each candidate, and see which one shares more of my viewpoints (Some being more important than others). Sucks, because I don't get to vote in any primaries :) ANYWAY... On to taxes... I can see the advantages to this, but right off the top of my head, I also see three main problems with folding all of the income tax revenue into sales tax: 1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the federal government relies ENTIRELY on income tax... As in, all of the sales tax and property taxes go to state and local. If we eliminated income tax, then some of the greatly-increased sales tax would have to go to the federal government. Is that permitted by the constitution? 2) Sales tax is a flat percentage, regardless of income. Right now, the majority of the tax burden is on the upper-middle and upper classes, which makes being poor suck a little bit less. If you're making $100k a year, a 30% tax rate isn't going to kill you, but if you're making $25k a year, that 30% will really cut into your ability to feed yourself. 3) Don't have time to really crunch the numbers (I'm going home in a few minutes), but it seems to me that this would raise retail prices. That would hurt tourism and exports, as foreigners would see higher prices without them being offset by lower income tax.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Hey, I may not subscribe to the Libertarian agenda, but I'm not die-hard against it either. I consider myself independent, as I pick and choose the parts of each philosophy that I most agree with. That's how I vote, too. I find a list of the policy positions of each candidate, and see which one shares more of my viewpoints (Some being more important than others). Sucks, because I don't get to vote in any primaries :) ANYWAY... On to taxes... I can see the advantages to this, but right off the top of my head, I also see three main problems with folding all of the income tax revenue into sales tax: 1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the federal government relies ENTIRELY on income tax... As in, all of the sales tax and property taxes go to state and local. If we eliminated income tax, then some of the greatly-increased sales tax would have to go to the federal government. Is that permitted by the constitution? 2) Sales tax is a flat percentage, regardless of income. Right now, the majority of the tax burden is on the upper-middle and upper classes, which makes being poor suck a little bit less. If you're making $100k a year, a 30% tax rate isn't going to kill you, but if you're making $25k a year, that 30% will really cut into your ability to feed yourself. 3) Don't have time to really crunch the numbers (I'm going home in a few minutes), but it seems to me that this would raise retail prices. That would hurt tourism and exports, as foreigners would see higher prices without them being offset by lower income tax.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the federal government relies ENTIRELY on income tax... As in, all of the sales tax and property taxes go to state and local.
Wrong. Well, partly wrong. Property taxes, according to my knowledge (I'll have to look it up again) is entirely state based. There's no federal property tax. Income tax, when talking on the federal level, only goes toward the interest payments on the federal debt and interest payments to the Fed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we eliminated income tax, then some of the greatly-increased sales tax would have to go to the federal government. Is that permitted by the constitution?
Absolutely. Sales taxes were one of the first taxes enacted by the Congress way back when, and has since been repealed. And if I were to guess, it would have been repealed sometime between 1860 and 1915. I'll look into this as well. As to permission by the Constitution: Article 1 Secion 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... Sales tax is technically an Excise tax, and if it is done at a percentage rate throughout the whole union, then it is considered uniform. So yes, it is Constitutional.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sales tax is a flat percentage, regardless of income. Right now, the majority of the tax burden is on the upper-middle and upper classes, which makes being poor suck a little bit less. If you're making $100k a year, a 30% tax rate isn't going to kill you, but if you're making $25k a year, that 30% will really cut into your ability to feed yourself.
I understand this logic. However, in Massachusetts for example, there is no tax on food or clothing. So they could do something like that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
it seems to me that this would raise retail prices
Obviously. But this can be adjusted.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the federal government relies ENTIRELY on income tax... As in, all of the sales tax and property taxes go to state and local.
Wrong. Well, partly wrong. Property taxes, according to my knowledge (I'll have to look it up again) is entirely state based. There's no federal property tax. Income tax, when talking on the federal level, only goes toward the interest payments on the federal debt and interest payments to the Fed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we eliminated income tax, then some of the greatly-increased sales tax would have to go to the federal government. Is that permitted by the constitution?
Absolutely. Sales taxes were one of the first taxes enacted by the Congress way back when, and has since been repealed. And if I were to guess, it would have been repealed sometime between 1860 and 1915. I'll look into this as well. As to permission by the Constitution: Article 1 Secion 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... Sales tax is technically an Excise tax, and if it is done at a percentage rate throughout the whole union, then it is considered uniform. So yes, it is Constitutional.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sales tax is a flat percentage, regardless of income. Right now, the majority of the tax burden is on the upper-middle and upper classes, which makes being poor suck a little bit less. If you're making $100k a year, a 30% tax rate isn't going to kill you, but if you're making $25k a year, that 30% will really cut into your ability to feed yourself.
I understand this logic. However, in Massachusetts for example, there is no tax on food or clothing. So they could do something like that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
it seems to me that this would raise retail prices
Obviously. But this can be adjusted.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Well, partly wrong. Property taxes, according to my knowledge (I'll have to look it up again) is entirely state based. There's no federal property tax. Income tax, when talking on the federal level, only goes toward the interest payments on the federal debt and interest payments to the Fed.
"Until 2010, there had never been a federal sales tax in the United States; however, the 2010 health care reform law now imposes a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax[^] And you're right about property taxes... They're usually local (municipality), not even state-level. Sales taxes are all local/state, so that leaves only income tax for the federal government. The federal income tax pays for the entire federal budget, or close enough to it.
josda1000 wrote:
I understand this logic. However, in Massachusetts for example, there is no tax on food or clothing. So they could do something like that.
Jersey does the same thing with clothing, which is why for a long time, New Yorkers would drive across the border to Jersey when buying clothes. We do it in New York too, now... So yeah, this would be a good way to alleviate that point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
Well, partly wrong. Property taxes, according to my knowledge (I'll have to look it up again) is entirely state based. There's no federal property tax. Income tax, when talking on the federal level, only goes toward the interest payments on the federal debt and interest payments to the Fed.
"Until 2010, there had never been a federal sales tax in the United States; however, the 2010 health care reform law now imposes a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax[^] And you're right about property taxes... They're usually local (municipality), not even state-level. Sales taxes are all local/state, so that leaves only income tax for the federal government. The federal income tax pays for the entire federal budget, or close enough to it.
josda1000 wrote:
I understand this logic. However, in Massachusetts for example, there is no tax on food or clothing. So they could do something like that.
Jersey does the same thing with clothing, which is why for a long time, New Yorkers would drive across the border to Jersey when buying clothes. We do it in New York too, now... So yeah, this would be a good way to alleviate that point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
"Until 2010, there had never been a federal sales tax in the United States; however, the 2010 health care reform law now imposes a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services"
I couldn't find this quote. I want to see it, where is it?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
Well, partly wrong. Property taxes, according to my knowledge (I'll have to look it up again) is entirely state based. There's no federal property tax. Income tax, when talking on the federal level, only goes toward the interest payments on the federal debt and interest payments to the Fed.
"Until 2010, there had never been a federal sales tax in the United States; however, the 2010 health care reform law now imposes a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax[^] And you're right about property taxes... They're usually local (municipality), not even state-level. Sales taxes are all local/state, so that leaves only income tax for the federal government. The federal income tax pays for the entire federal budget, or close enough to it.
josda1000 wrote:
I understand this logic. However, in Massachusetts for example, there is no tax on food or clothing. So they could do something like that.
Jersey does the same thing with clothing, which is why for a long time, New Yorkers would drive across the border to Jersey when buying clothes. We do it in New York too, now... So yeah, this would be a good way to alleviate that point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"Until 2010, there had never been a federal sales tax in the United States; however, the 2010 health care reform law now imposes a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services"
I couldn't find this quote. I want to see it, where is it?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Second-to-last sentence of the first section, just before the "Effects" part. EDIT: Oh, nevermind... Didn't see your other post
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)