Why cut taxes?

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

What do you consider the upside of a vat tax?

I don't necessarily see it.

The big downside is obviously that it would discourage spending. I would also think it would cause a wider variation of government income because while incomes do go up and down with the economy, I would think that spending varies even more with an up and down economy. Just a guess though.

I guess on the flip side, people would likely save more money (at least those who can afford to), but like I said this hurts the economy when people don't spend.

What makes it a better model for you?

This will apply more to Federal taxes, but we have a really confounded tax code. And we have a ton of people who cheat the system. No more shell games. Pay your fair share as you go.

[beefytee]

What do you consider the upside of a vat tax?

I don't necessarily see it.

The big downside is obviously that it would discourage spending. I would also think it would cause a wider variation of government income because while incomes do go up and down with the economy, I would think that spending varies even more with an up and down economy. Just a guess though.

I guess on the flip side, people would likely save more money (at least those who can afford to), but like I said this hurts the economy when people don't spend.

What makes it a better model for you?

[Bo Diddley]

Thanks.

I think this is a good idea.

As long as the implementation isn't regressive, I would be ok with it.

And I echo Omaha's sentiment that consumption tax is a better model.

[Jeff Lebowski]

https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/8/240...0and%20Wyoming.

Thanks.

I think this is a good idea.

[Bo Diddley]

If you eliminate sales tax on food, clothing, and medicine, then no I don't think it is regressive. I believe Utah already has no tax on medicine and clothing. If we could replace all income tax with a VAT or sales tax (with appropriate carveouts necessity items to protect the low income) I would be all for it. Taxing consumption vs. income seems like fundamentally a better practical basis for a tax code.

On the property tax side, wouldn't that be passed on to the rent?

[Bo Diddley]

Where are you seeing this. I can't find anything supporting this.

https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/8/240...0and%20Wyoming.

Lawmakers are already planning to cut Utah’s state income tax rate again during the 2024 Legislature, but Gov. Spencer Cox has something else in mind.

“I would love not to have income tax in the state,” the governor told more than 100 lobbyists, elected officials and others gathered Monday for the Utah Taxpayers Association’s annual legislative outlook conference.

[Omaha 680]

Governor Cox has said he's interested in eliminating Utah Income Tax. I guess that means shifting the tax burden to property & sales tax. Wouldn't that be regressive?

If you eliminate sales tax on food, clothing, and medicine, then no I don't think it is regressive. I believe Utah already has no tax on medicine and clothing. If we could replace all income tax with a VAT or sales tax (with appropriate carveouts necessity items to protect the low income) I would be all for it. Taxing consumption vs. income seems like fundamentally a better practical basis for a tax code.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Governor Cox has said he's interested in eliminating Utah Income Tax. I guess that means shifting the tax burden to property & sales tax. Wouldn't that be regressive?

Where are you seeing this. I can't find anything supporting this.

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

Governor Cox has said he's interested in eliminating Utah Income Tax. I guess that means shifting the tax burden to property & sales tax. Wouldn't that be regressive?

[Uncle Ted]

Can someone take away Tim's democrat membership card? This has to be getting embarrassing.

Tim Cook says he ‘loves the tax cut and tax reform’ and that ‘it’s great for business’

After Tim Cook’s visit at the White House on Wednesday, we’re now learning tidbits as to what was discussed during his time with President Donald Trump.

According to the director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow (via CNBC), Tim Cook “loves the tax cut and tax reform,” and that “it’s great for business. And Apple is going to be building plants, campuses, adding jobs, lots of business investment. That was the first point he made to President Trump.”

Kudlow continued by saying “I spent a good amount of time with him [Tim Cook], and then we came back and we visited the POTUS. He has a lot of experience in China, obviously. He was very helpful in making some suggestions.”

China plays a huge role in Apple’s supply chain. The majority of Apple’s largest component manufacturers, such as Foxconn, are based in China.

Cook has been an advocate for a US corporate tax system similar to what passed back in December. The tax reform will allow Apple to return hundreds of billions of dollars back to the United States.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he was “looking forward” to meeting “Tim Cook of Apple.”

Apparently, Tim Cook sat one seat away from President Trump during the dinner.
[...]

https://9to5mac.com/2018/04/26/trump-tim-cook-meet-tax-reform/

How many democrats voted for the Drumpf tax cut again?

[Flystripper]

Cut military spending growth. We can destroy the world 100 times over. Yes it will hurt sectors of our economy but whatever. We are safe at the current size. No growth necessary. I would prefer a cut in military spending but let’s start with no growth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[happyone]

It's easy to say let's not pay what was promised, even if some reform is warranted. Most people advocating SSA benefits are far away from having received them.

So, if you work and pay SS taxes for fifty years, you're saying that people should expect to receive nothing so that we can balance the budget? So let's balance the budget by paying no social security, no welfare, abandon the military? Of course that is absurd.

Think of social security. You work fifty years, supporting the system. Did you know that if you file jointly and your gross plus half of your social security benefits exceed $32000, your social security benefits are taxed. So you are taxed on benefits which you supported by paying taxes. Does that even make sense? And you believe Social Security should be looked at? Perhaps, but if you can't see some relationship to paying into the system and seniors who often rely upon that income to support themselves to some degree, then I'd like you to explain why.

Yes I know about the taxing scenerios of SS, I did my In-laws taxes for years - You make several valid points. For a frame of reference, I can start drawing SS next year and I'm employed by the DoD, so I'm extremely interested in this.

I didn't mean cut SS out completely - that would be totally unfair as well as stupid, a sure way to lose your reelection bid and probably tank the stock market. IF the decision is made to end the current version of SS, there has to be some sort of graduated phase out. It would not be fair to someone in my position or worse currently receiving SS, to tell them - Sorry no SS benefits for you. Maybe do something like they did when the changed the Gov't retirement system form CSRS to FERS. Current employees were allow to stay in CSRS or transfer to the new system and CSRS benefits frozen at what was currently earned. Quite frankly most stayed in the CSRS system.

We've discussed various ways to "save" SS. Everything from lifting the cap on wages, raising SS tax rates, raising the Retirement age, to cutting benefits and turning into a 401K (or more specifically the Gov't TSP program) or some combination of all them. I don't think it is sustainable in its current form. Cowboy probably has a much better grasp on this than I do and as well as each scenereo's pluses and minuses (It's been 35 yrs since my last Econ class)

Also, currently I think people expect too much from SS. It was never meant to be a comfortable middle class retirement - it was meant to keep the wolf on the other side of the door.

As far as military spending goes - If you really want to cut DoD spending, you've got to start cutting missions and that means people. You can't keep sending people into combat zones again and again and again. If you do, you break your military no matter how well equipped.

One way to know if are about to break your military is to look at reenlistment rates for the 3rd enlistment (mid career NCOs) and the percentage of Majors and senior Captains (0-3) who are getting out. Those guys should have 90%+ retention rate. That retention rate is starting to drop. So there are problems on the horizon.

[Topper]

Two of those three affect me or will shortly (Military and SS) - Everything needs to be looked at!

It's easy to say let's not pay what was promised, even if some reform is warranted. Most people advocating SSA benefits are far away from having received them.

So, if you work and pay SS taxes for fifty years, you're saying that people should expect to receive nothing so that we can balance the budget? So let's balance the budget by paying no social security, no welfare, abandon the military? Of course that is absurd.

Think of social security. You work fifty years, supporting the system. Did you know that if you file jointly and your gross plus half of your social security benefits exceed $32000, your social security benefits are taxed. So you are taxed on benefits which you supported by paying taxes. Does that even make sense? And you believe Social Security should be looked at? Perhaps, but if you can't see some relationship to paying into the system and seniors who often rely upon that income to support themselves to some degree, then I'd like you to explain why.

[happyone]

Yep. All the geriatrics in this board would freak out if we cut their “retirement benefits” and the conservatives will freak out if military spending is cut and all the liberals will freak out of Medicaid is touched. We are screwed but at least I’ll be dead and gone by the time it all hits the fan.

Two of those three affect me or will shortly (Military and SS) - Everything needs to be looked at!