Daniel Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I had just been thinking the other day that Europe is called socialist evil by many pundits (or heaven depending on who you ask), but when I was there as a tourist, the sales tax was gigantic, and that tax is far more regressive than our income tax here. In fact the cheapest sales tax as I remember it, might have been Greece's, the country whose finances are falling apart. Denmark's was through the roof and their economy is doing fine. Greece's VAT amounts to an 18 percent sales tax, although 8 percent for food. Very high by US standards. Edited January 6, 2012 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Uh oh... I'm lost. I thought that if you have a huge tax (be it consumption or income) that goes to the govt, who then doles it out as it sees fit -- that's what the people Dose cited think of as Socialism. They don't adhere to a strict definition of Socialism - it's just a catch-all for a government collection of wealth and (supposed) fair re-distribution via public services available to all. The way you worded it it sounds like you think consumption taxes wouldn't be considered part of the so-called European socialist agenda. I just don't get the subtlety being invoked... I'm asking a real question not propping up an argument to come. I have nothing to add I just don't get what I'm missing and I AM missing something. Edited February 9, 2012 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Question: For those who advocate for cutting spending, military spending gets cut by how much? Or, does it get cut at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Question: For those who advocate for cutting spending, military spending gets cut by how much? Or, does it get cut at all? I don't know by how much, but defense should not be immune from budget cuts. The problem is that the left doesn't want to cut anything besides defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I don't know by how much, but defense should not be immune from budget cuts. The problem is that the left doesn't want to cut anything besides defense. OK. Your second sentence is a really broad statement. Do you really believe that everyone, or even the "most important" players, on the left want to cut only the military? What do you base that statement on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) I agree that cuts need to be done across the board. Nothing should be immune. As for the military, I would think that a great deal of efficiency could be achieved by merging the branches of the military. There has to be a lot of redundant personnel and waste with the separate organizations. Maybe they are integrated as much as they can be and I am just not in the know. Areas that would be appropriate for a centralized source could be HR type functions, supply chain, etc. I am sure that going beyond this has a great deal of resistence internally. The rivalry amoung the services is famous. But, The Air Force isn't the only one with planes. The navy isn't the only one with ships. Someone with military experience could comment much better than I. Edited February 9, 2012 by devilsadvoc8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I agree that cuts need to be done across the board. Nothing should be immune. As for the military, I would think that a great deal of efficiency could be achieved by merging the branches of the military. There has to be a lot of redundant personnel and waste with the separate organizations. Maybe they are integrated as much as they can be and I am just not in the know. Areas that would be appropriate for a centralized source could be HR type functions, supply chain, etc. I am sure that going beyond this has a great deal of resistence internally. The rivalry amoung the services is famous. But, The Air Force isn't the only one with planes. The navy isn't the only one with ships. Someone with military experience could comment much better than I. Huh. I did serve in the Navy (was never on a boat, but did accumulate over 1,000 hours in the air), but I couldn't even begin to say that your idea is doable or not. I could see a possible objection as "things would be too centralized." Otherwise, an interesting proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I agree that cuts need to be done across the board. Nothing should be immune. As for the military, I would think that a great deal of efficiency could be achieved by merging the branches of the military. There has to be a lot of redundant personnel and waste with the separate organizations. Maybe they are integrated as much as they can be and I am just not in the know. Areas that would be appropriate for a centralized source could be HR type functions, supply chain, etc. I am sure that going beyond this has a great deal of resistence internally. The rivalry amoung the services is famous. But, The Air Force isn't the only one with planes. The navy isn't the only one with ships. Someone with military experience could comment much better than I. The difficulty with cutting military spending is that a good chunk of that, actually closer to a very large chunk, goes to paying veteran's benefits, which politically are untouchable. Cutting a few weapons systems, buying fewer bombers, etc. will be mouse-speck on the federal budget (not to say that's a reason not to make such cuts). The only other way to cut military spending is to maintain a smaller standing army in the future. We won't see large savings there though for a little while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMONPETEYD Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Consumption Tax EDIT: Abolish the current system, put in a consumption tax alone. Edited February 9, 2012 by CMONPETEYD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The only other way to cut military spending is to maintain a smaller standing army in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrjctQ8wWHU&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Consumption Tax EDIT: Abolish the current system, put in a consumption tax alone. That's fine, but keep in mind that a consumption tax is highly regressive, i.e. poorer people will be paying a much higher proportion of their income in taxes since most of their earnings go toward consumption and in much higher numbers than wealthier individuals. Also, the actual consumption tax needed to come close to balancing the federal budget alone in any particular year, even assuming you could make a lot of cuts, would be something like 25 to 30 percent (and that's probably a low estimate). Add the eight percent sales tax you pay in NJ, that's something close to a 40% effective sales tax. The necessary consumption tax would go even higher if you wanted to get rid of the social security payroll tax also. Everyone hates filling out their income tax returns, and the billions of dollars that companies spend on merely figuring out how much tax they owe (or how much they can avoid) could be better spent on actually making things. But more likely than not, you'll be handing a lot more of your money to Uncle Sam with a consumption tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Every tax system is rife for abuse isn't it? The study of economics kicks my ass... I just dont have the desire to explode my brain. It's depressing. My husband is reading Cottage Economy by William Cobbet - it's a good read. But I just feel the arguing in my head.. I wish I wasn't so muddled. Imagine having a clear head that grasps complex ideas and can keep focus when introducing conflicting information. It's all so simple... I just wish my brain could MAKE it simple without having to work at it ANYHOW -- There are just so many ways to circumvent taxes. With consumptive taxes I just think it'll be that much easier for corporate america to exploit citizens and workers. How will they do that when it's the federal govt imposing taxes? By fighting for exclusions on buisness to business purchases AHHH --- My head is exploding... I just feel like we're effed in the a as Cartman put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 As others stated a sales tax would impact lower income brackets harder. Already half the nation doesn't pay any income tax. Add a consumption tax and that will change dramatically. Any system will have plenty of loopholes. If they institute a consumption/sales/Value added tax then there will simply be a great lobbying effort to have YOUR product subject to a lower rate. food lower fine but does an oreo cookie qualify? What about vinegar? we could go on forever about how that could shake out. Talking about taxation is treating the symptom not the disease of overspending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 OK. Your second sentence is a really broad statement. Do you really believe that everyone, or even the "most important" players, on the left want to cut only the military? What do you base that statement on? I base it on reality. Look at Obama's 2013 budget proposal ... it kicks the can down the road a little further with more massive deficit spending. And I don't see Democrats criticizing it. We get the same platitudes about stimulus spending in a bad economy and protecting the middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts