GOP national sales tax

[Giant Saguaro]

I would easily consider a national sales tax replacing an income tax. Consider, I say. Of course I would probably consider about anything as a replacement to the income tax.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, but DeMint is going to be 1 of 100 Senators. There's no reason to worry about what one Senator supports.

Let's say the income brackets are:

$200,000+  20%
$500,000+  50%
$800,000+  70%

After you make your first $500,000, are you really going to feel like working for 30 cents of every dollar you earn? No.

That's my argument for a flat tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also support it, but we need to cut spending so it isn't so big. For now, I think a simplified income tax is the best chance we have at tax reform.

And how can part of the Constitution be unconstitutional?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a federal statistic on the cost of living. What the  are you talking about?

It's like saying, "Man it's a federal unemployment rating? It doesn't take into account unemployment HAHA! LOL!!!!!!!!!!"

Hastert, 1 of 1 speaker of the House supports it. The federal poverty level does not take into account cost of living in a particular area, to the benefit of North Dakota, and to the detriment of SF.

[Rixtex]

People don't really pay payroll taxes, but I'm for abolishing them as well.

I know I pay both social security and medicare payroll taxes every two weeks.

Why do you think people don't pay payroll taxes?

[Rixtex]

The national sales tax as the main source of revenue is a bad idea. No matter how you try to exempt low income folks, the administration of such a program would be a nightmare.

The flat tax would be much simpler and could be structured in such a way to still be progressive.

For instance, with a flat tax of 15-20% on earned and un-earned income, provide large personal exemptions of $20000-$30000 and dependent exemptions of $5000-$10000. There would be no other deductions.

With this system, a single taxpayer would not owe any taxes until he/she made $20001 in income, then pay $0.15 in tax. A family of four could avoid taxes on the first $50000 of income. In contrast, a single person who made $200000 would pay get their $20K exemption and pay  $27000 in tax ($200K - $20K x 15%).

All rates and amounts are examples, so don't beat me up over the details. The idea, of course, is fair game.

[A18]

Hastret has come out in favor of one of three things: a sales tax, a flat tax, or a VAT. A flat tax with a certain amount exempted, as you describe, is by far the most likely IMHO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I meant slightly less progressive, sorry.

And I know most people aren't currently receiving SS, but the SS administration is capable of sending everyone a check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hastret supports tax reform in general.

It doesn't matter. If a place is too expensive, you move. The income tax does not take into account the cost of living in specific areas.

[hotpprs]

Yes, but DeMint is going to be 1 of 100 Senators. There's no reason to worry about what one Senator supports.

Let's say the income brackets are:

$200,000+  20%
$500,000+  50%
$800,000+  70%

After you make your first $500,000, are you really going to feel like working for 30 cents of every dollar you earn? No.

That's my argument for a flat tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also support it, but we need to cut spending so it isn't so big. For now, I think a simplified income tax is the best chance we have at tax reform.

And how can part of the Constitution be unconstitutional?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a federal statistic on the cost of living. What the  are you talking about?

It's like saying, "Man it's a federal unemployment rating? It doesn't take into account unemployment HAHA! LOL!!!!!!!!!!"

Hastert, 1 of 1 speaker of the House supports it. The federal poverty level does not take into account cost of living in a particular area, to the benefit of North Dakota, and to the detriment of SF.

Yes, it looks like this has been covered here before in August:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=6455.0

If this is true, this is probably the most important issue that has been ignored in this campaign by both Bush & Kerry. Why wouldn't Kerry jump on this? Because Bush has not openly supported it? Only some members of Congress? Or would Kerry go along with this? Highly unlikely.
Can you imagine the windfall for executives getting stock options? All that money tax free upon exercising their stock options. Most of it just gets passed on and on to their estates so all that money from the rich never gets taxed while the poor suckers who are living paycheck to paycheck pay tax on everything they make over thier poverty level exemption. Boy thats a great name for that.

[A18]

Banks automatically redistribute wealth. It doesn't matter if rich people keep more.

Hotpprs, who are you voting for?

[hotpprs]

Banks automatically redistribute wealth. It doesn't matter if rich people keep more.

Hotpprs, who are you voting for?

All Democratic this year.
Kerry, and Democratics for Senate & Congress.
I am, and will continue to be a Republican, but this particular group needs to be throw out of office because everything they are doing seems to be against my interests.  Among them, the GOP's plans for overtime, stock options, and this possible tax plan which would hurt people at my income level who are homeowners in the New York suburbs.
The only thing I regret about getting Kerry elected, is that the Supreme Court will probably gain a liberal majority in the next 4 years.
I want it to remain conservative, but the economic security of my family is my highest priority. I need food, shelter, education and healthcare for my family before I worry about social issues such as abortion and the death penalty.

[A18]

What do you mean plans for overtime?

[??????????]

What do you mean plans for overtime?

According to the liars (Democrats) Bush is cutting everyones overtime. When in fact overtime is only being cut for those making over 200,000 dollars a year. And if you make that much a year OT is meaningless. Plus companies aren't REQUIRED to cut OT. It would be at their discretion.

[A18]

I didn't realize people actually believed all that stuff. I wonder how many old people think Bush is going to privatize social security.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you say it's not regressive, but only over a lifetime. But that means for a college kid making not much, it would mean paying a lot more? So I wouldn't be able to buy all my vinyls, CDs, hair gel, booze and do all the expensive sh!t I do now Philip?

Then it's a terrible idea, and once you move out of the house you'd think it was too unless your parents buy you ever single luxury item you buy, pay for all your dates, etc.

[A18]

All your poverty level spending taxes are covered. Only the middle class would be affected, and not in a big way.

[AuH2O]

The sales tax is obviously the best system in terms of benefitting the economy, particularly in the long-run.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All your poverty level spending taxes are covered. Only the middle class would be affected, and not in a big way.

I'm a "dependent". therefore I'm not under poverty level, although my income is.

[Nym90]

What do you mean plans for overtime?

According to the liars (Democrats) Bush is cutting everyones overtime. When in fact overtime is only being cut for those making over 200,000 dollars a year. And if you make that much a year OT is meaningless. Plus companies aren't REQUIRED to cut OT. It would be at their discretion.

Um, no.

Under the old law, each of the following three tests must be met to classify an employee as exempt and therefore ineligible for overtime.

First, the “salary-level test” stipulates that employees earning less than a certain level each week cannot be exempt.

Second, the “salary-basis test” states that employees must be paid a set salary—not an hourly wage—in order to be exempt.

Finally, the third screening test is the “duties test,” which states that a worker cannot be denied overtime pay unless his or her duties are primarily “administrative,” “professional,” or “executive” in nature.

The new regulations would raise the salary level under which all employees are protected to $455 per week (i.e., any employee making under $455 would be eligible for overtime benefits). Under current law that level is set at $155 ($170 for professionals), a pay rate that has remained unchanged since 1975. A salary of $455 per week equals an annual salary of just $23,660, about $5,000 a year above the poverty level for a family of four. And because the exemption level is not indexed for inflation, it will protect fewer and fewer workers over time. Initially, about 400,000 employees who work overtime will now be paid for it.

Sounds ok so far, but here's the kicker.

The many other rules changes—principally those amending the three key duties tests—would dramatically increase the number of workers who would be classified as “professional,” “administrative,” or “executive” and thus remove millions of additional workers from overtime coverage. Changes in the primary duty test and the redefinition of “executive” will allow employers to deny overtime pay to workers who do very little supervision and a great deal of manual or routine work, including employees in factories and industrial plants.

Employees who can only recommend—but not carry out—the “change of status” of the two employees that they “supervise” will be exempted as “executives” even if they manage nothing more substantial than a team or grouping of employees. In all, 1.4 million low-level, salaried supervisors will lose their overtime rights, along with 548,000 hourly supervisors, who could be switched to being paid on a salary basis and thus denied overtime protection.

More than 900,000 employees without a graduate degree or even a college degree will be designated “professional employees” and lose the right to overtime pay, even if their pay and status fall far below that of degreed employees.

As many as 2.3 million team leaders with no supervisory authority will be exempted as “administrative employees” even if they are line or production employees.

Approximately 130,000 chefs and sous chefs who are not executive chefs will be exempted as “learned professionals” and “creative professionals.” Pre-kindergarten and nursery school teachers, no matter how low their pay, will be exempt under the new rule, even if their work does not require the exercise of discretion and judgment.

30,000 nursery school teachers will lose the right to overtime pay. Mortgage loan officers will be affected by the new financial services industry exemption and by the gutting of the protections for employees who are line workers, rather than policy or business operations staff.

Ultimately, 160,000 mortgage loan officers will lose the right to overtime pay that they currently have today.

In addition, nearly 90,000 computer employees, funeral directors, and licensed embalmers will become exempt professionals and lose their right to overtime pay.

Furthermore, the DOL creates a new exemption that will deny overtime protection to otherwise nonexempt employees who earn $100,000 or more a year, as long as they regularly perform a single task that could be considered characteristic of an executive, administrative, or professional employee. This new provision will exempt an estimated 400,000 employees who currently are entitled to overtime pay.

[hotpprs]

What do you mean plans for overtime?

Bush's labor department changed the Fair Labor standards act this year that has been in place for decades.

[hotpprs]

What do you mean plans for overtime?

According to the liars (Democrats) Bush is cutting everyones overtime. When in fact overtime is only being cut for those making over 200,000 dollars a year. And if you make that much a year OT is meaningless. Plus companies aren't REQUIRED to cut OT. It would be at their discretion.

That's absolutely false. The number you are talking about is $100,000 and that is just the level where the overtime protectional laws do not pertain to you anymore. At that level, it is totally up to your employer if he wants to give you overtime.
Under that level, there are "tests" based on your job description. If you do not meet one of those "tests", you do not get protection from the government. Once again, you can get it if your employer wants to give it to you, but you can't sue them if they don't.
You can go read the facts at the Labor Dept web site.
I am protected because I do computer hardware repair which there is a specific exclusion for. But even though I made it through this round, I see how Bush is looking at other avenues to allow employers to reduce or eliminate overtime such as giving comp time instead of cash for extra hours worked.

[??????????]

It doesn't affect me either way so I really dont care to be honest.