47% will pay no federal income tax

Would 10% added to the total spent by 100% of America's consumers suffice to finance the National Government as well or better than the income tax does today? Apparently about 8% is sufficient to finance state and local governments.

Keynes and financial manipulation notwithstanding, in the end it's the arithmetic that counts

 

apparently not since I still pay state income taxes every year

I've showed my arithmetic.

I am asking to see Tinsley's arithmetic.

not interested in reading any other quotes you may find.
don't really care what you find in some book somewhere.


I am interested in hearing how does Tinsley think only 10% would actually work

please explain your opinion that this would "suffice"


I can't ask it any simpler than that.

If you're an Auburn grad, and have difficulty reading and comprehending simple English, then I apologize.

 

The problem with your thinking IMO is that you think of things on terms of percentages.

Everybody should pay their equal and fair share. People want everything to be equal in this country except when it comes down to their money. The low income doesn't want to pay anything and think the higher incomes should make up for it.

The poor would only get poorer if this country continues to spend itself into bankruptcy.

Inflation is your enemy and the Fed is the culprit. They are in charge of stabilizing pricing and protecting our currency. BOTH of which they haven't done thus hurting the poor and middle class.

 

im not sure exactly what is being talked about here, but the popular "fair tax" proposal includes rebates of taxes on about the first $20-30K spent.

i thought you were just old and weird, but this post means its much more than that.

Oregon has it right using the opposite tax structure. no sales tax and 8% income tax.

 

Re; State income tax

Dump that along with the IRS.

As thing stand, simple arithmetic bringsproposed the sales taxes up to a total of about 19%. I find that acceptable for now . . . if income taxes are eliminated.

I also find it acceptable to systematically extinguish unlawful power, which of course will have a dramatic effect on the cost of government.

 

sweet! an actual opinion from tinsley (almost double the amount of your original opinion, but at least it's an opinion).

lets take that a step farther.

what percentage of that 19% goes to local? state? federal?

and what spending should we cut at each level to make up for the loss in money flowing in?

 

OK but I'm not going to write a book on this or any other forum. All I want to do is share ideas and cause folks to think and consider.

Would 10% added to the total spent by 100% of America's consumers suffice to finance the National Government as well or better than the income tax does today?

With the additional 53% paying National tax each time they make a purchase, that should amount to a considerable sum.

Won't 10% of the list price of everything sold in America amount to more than the income tax presently paid by a mere 47%.

Apparently about 8% is sufficient to finance state and local governments.

****

Re: Cost reduction.

Start reducing expenses by extinguishing the IRS, the WOD*, political double-dipping and unjustifiable retirement pay. Then systematically go after the so-called pork. Congressman Ron Paul ought to be a big help.

Eradicate lobbyists, preferably with a mace and chain Conan style.

tgsam

*Wonder how ol' Billy Tauzin, esq. is making out these days.

 

so you're adding 10% on top of current sales tax?
that's not what you said earlier, but OK.

ahhh, but here is what you're missing.
the uber rich are paying 35% on the rather large sum they are making.

you are changing that to 10 on the much smaller sum they are spending (they spend a lot less than they make, which is part of how they got to be rich in the 1st place).


so, that's less money from every one in that bracket.

the middle is paying around 25% on every dollar they make.
they also usually spend less than they make, so that 10% on what they spend is also considerably lower amount than previously.


so now you're taking less money from every one in that bracket.

the poor make very little money, and therefore spend very little money.
10% of very little, is still very little.


so you have a minuscule increase in this bracket.

no, not even close.

that 47% does not spend remotely close to enough money.
10% of what they spend will still fall way, WAY short of the amount no longer coming from the upper 53%.

 

I think the numbers,including yours, merit serious study and exposure. Financially. something is dreadfully wrong and it needs to be smoked out and eliminated.

Unless inflation - which strikes me as a form of theft - can succeed forever, sooner or later America's financial house of cards will eventually come down.

Hard.

Since I've never had anything approaching wealth, I have little passion for fancy economic talk. However, my passion for justice is intense beyond the capacity of most individuals to imagine.

Not even a Greenspan can pee on my leg and make me believe it's rain.

tgsam