How? A progressive income tax always beats a sales tax on consumption. At least as far as the common person is concerned. No income tax is always better for the wealthy.
we don't ... they were voting whether to create one or not
No, they were NOT.
It is a purely political ploy to make anti-income taxers happy. There have not been enough state legislative supports to pass an income tax in 20 years. It is a waste of your tax dollars to debate and pass such crap and you should not encourage it. Like the law they are considering to allow firearms on the college campus-- every school chancellor that has been asked is vehemently opposed to it, but republicans want to make the NRA (a major campaign contributor) happy so they will probably pass that, too. And banning Sharia law, which would never happen anyway.
I become more disgusted with state officials every day they squander on such drivel. Don't they have budgets to balance? Is this what we pay them for?
How? A progressive income tax always beats a sales tax on consumption. At least as far as the common person is concerned. No income tax is always better for the wealthy.
Or anyone looking to save money.
I don't want to be taxed on every dollar I make from the state too.
No, they were NOT.
It is a purely political ploy to make anti-income taxers happy. There have not been enough state legislative supports to pass an income tax in 20 years. It is a waste of your tax dollars to debate and pass such crap and you should not encourage it. Like the law they are considering to allow firearms on the college campus-- every school chancellor that has been asked is vehemently opposed to it, but republicans want to make the NRA (a major campaign contributor) happy so they will probably pass that, too. And banning Sharia law, which would never happen anyway.
I become more disgusted with state officials every day they squander on such drivel. Don't they have budgets to balance? Is this what we pay them for?
Don't forget spending the $$$ to vote in a constitutional right to fish in Tennessee. Just in time to thwart the anti-fishing lobby.
Stunts on either side of the aisle are an insult to the folks paying their salaries- that's us. Anyone, regardless of political views, should be offended when politicos of any stripe waste our time and money on circus show issues.
No, they were NOT.
It is a purely political ploy to make anti-income taxers happy. There have not been enough state legislative supports to pass an income tax in 20 years. It is a waste of your tax dollars to debate and pass such crap and you should not encourage it. Like the law they are considering to allow firearms on the college campus-- every school chancellor that has been asked is vehemently opposed to it, but republicans want to make the NRA (a major campaign contributor) happy so they will probably pass that, too. And banning Sharia law, which would never happen anyway.
Isn't the income tax ban a constitutional issue? Not only are they wasting their time passing the law but then they will waste your money because what they actually passed is just a bill to put it on the next ballot and that will cost money for the election.
I don't want to be taxed on every dollar I make from the state too.
Seriously don't understand your response. Whether the money comes from an income tax or a sales tax or a property tax, it's still all the same money. It's just that with a truly progressive income tax, the folks who can afford it pay more rather than the working person.
As for how it's being spent, hate to remind y'all but you voted them in. You can vote them out. Everyone of those people in that legislature won an election. If they're wasting money, then it's up to you to vote them out. Problem is that, as usual, there are a lot of people with a lot of differing opinions. Every waste of money that you see was passed by a majority vote of the representatives elected by the people at the time the bill was passed.
Seriously don't understand your response. Whether the money comes from an income tax or a sales tax or a property tax, it's still all the same money. It's just that with a truly progressive income tax, the folks who can afford it pay more rather than the working person.
As for how it's being spent, hate to remind y'all but you voted them in. You can vote them out. Everyone of those people in that legislature won an election. If they're wasting money, then it's up to you to vote them out. Problem is that, as usual, there are a lot of people with a lot of differing opinions. Every waste of money that you see was passed by a majority vote of the representatives elected by the people at the time the bill was passed.
Here, I'll explain.
Right now, I only pay the state and local tax when I spend my money, if it's in savings, I'm not taxed on it.
Local income tax would tax me every dollar I make.
Nashville specifically draws a lot of tourist each year, those people pay the same taxes I do for using most of the same stuff. A local income tax does not share that same burdon. I've yet to hear anyone say, "I'm not vacationing there, they have too high of a sales tax"
Right now, I only pay the state and local tax when I spend my money, if it's in savings, I'm not taxed on it. Local income tax would tax me every dollar I make.
Nashville specifically draws a lot of tourist each year, those people pay the same taxes I do for using most of the same stuff. A local income tax does not share that same burdon. I've yet to hear anyone say, "I'm not vacationing there, they have too high of a sales tax"
I understand what you're saying but consider that the sales tax is as high as it is because there is no income tax. An income tax COULD allow a lower sales tax with the net result you might pay the same or less. (I would bet less unless you're one of the top 2% in a progressive income tax.)
With a lot of poorer people who have to spend all of their income to live, the tax burden is much heavier on them as a result.
I'll grant you that an income tax would not automatically lower the sales tax or property tax rate depending upon what the legislature does. But, I'll submit again, the people elect their representatives.
Thanks for the explanation. Appreciate the nice tone we've been able to keep this thread in.
Seriously don't understand your response. Whether the money comes from an income tax or a sales tax or a property tax, it's still all the same money. It's just that with a truly progressive income tax, the folks who can afford it pay more rather than the working person.
Taxing consumption rather than income makes considerably more sense for a lot of reasons. Biggest, in my mind, is the only time they ever create loopholes in that is for food or medical - which we can argue all day is "fair" or not, but most folks can get themselves to a point to live with that. You spend it, we tax it. Don't care how much you make. Don't care where you live. Don't care how you made the money. Spend it - we tax it - same for everyone. and those people that can afford to pay more - they do, every time they buy an extra car, or go to some resort, or do any of those things that those folks that can afford to pay more tax do that provide incomes for those of us who can't afford to pay more tax.
I understand what you're saying but consider that the sales tax is as high as it is because there is no income tax. An income tax COULD allow a lower sales tax with the net result you might pay the same or less. (I would bet less unless you're one of the top 2% in a progressive income tax.).
The problem I see with this approach is the goal of taxation, at any level, simply, is to raise revenue for the government to pay for necessary services.
It's not to create the maximum amount of revenue. It's not to create some type of transfer of wealth. I struggle to understand how it's more equitable to create a system that not only takes more from those that earn a higher income (those that can "afford" to payer higher taxes), but actually shifts the RESPONSIBILITY of some citizens to contribute for the services and benefits they receive to other citizens?
Our sales tax is a pretty simplistic way to tax consumption - it can be done in a much more sophisticated way that reduces the inherent rate burden on lower earning individuals and still maintain the integrity of all contributing and being taxed based on decision you make (consumption), not on the results of your contributions to society (income).
What's the point of banning an income tax that doesn't even exist? I don't get politics lol
Politics is all about posturing and deal making. To get X to sign Y bill, you'll allow Z. I'm not sure it's how this happened, but an example would be, "If we can get a vote on my bill banning the income tax, I'll sign on to vote for your bill to..." do whatever. Or "I'll lift a block I had on your legislation."
The old saying goes, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."
The problem I see with this approach is the goal of taxation, at any level, simply, is to raise revenue for the government to pay for necessary services.
It's not to create the maximum amount of revenue. It's not to create some type of transfer of wealth. I struggle to understand how it's more equitable to create a system that not only takes more from those that earn a higher income (those that can "afford" to payer higher taxes), but actually shifts the RESPONSIBILITY of some citizens to contribute for the services and benefits they receive to other citizens?
Our sales tax is a pretty simplistic way to tax consumption - it can be done in a much more sophisticated way that reduces the inherent rate burden on lower earning individuals and still maintain the integrity of all contributing and being taxed based on decision you make (consumption), not on the results of your contributions to society (income).
It stems from Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of diminishing marginal utility (utility here meaning a measurement of satisfaction). As an individual gets wealthier, the increment to his or her pleasure produced by an increment of his or her wealth gets smaller. Simply put, one dollar isn't worth as much to someone who makes $400,000/yr as it is to someone who makes $18k/yr. The idea is that taxing those who have more money by a higher percentage you can decrease some financial burden on those who gain greater utility from smaller amounts of income. If you apply his utilitarian philosophy, basically that overall happiness wins every time, it gives a foundation for the progressive tax system. If the happiness (utility) created by a lessening of tax burdens on those who make less is greater than the loss of utility suffered by taxing those with more at a higher rate then you set the tax rates based on income, increasing tax rates as income increases (progressive tax system).
Of course the arguments against that philosophy are pretty clear. You can create less incentive to work and earn more, the wealth from which you can draw higher taxes can shrink, and overall happiness could decrease...
/boring lecture
(I hope all of that is right. I don't have my notes on me, and it's spring break so I've kind of turned my brain to power saving mode. By the way, I'm just trying to explain the few things about all of this that I can. I don't pay enough in a progressive tax system to complain, nor am I so strapped for cash that sales tax hurts me.)
Right now, I only pay the state and local tax when I spend my money, if it's in savings, I'm not taxed on it.
Local income tax would tax me every dollar I make.
Nashville specifically draws a lot of tourist each year, those people pay the same taxes I do for using most of the same stuff. A local income tax does not share that same burdon. I've yet to hear anyone say, "I'm not vacationing there, they have too high of a sales tax"
Tennessee does have an income tax. It's called the hall tax. Depends on where you keep your savings. If you have money in any kind of mutual fund, you probably have income that falls in that category.
"The state collects a 6 percent tax on income from dividends and interest on certain investments. The state keeps 62.5 percent of the tax collected and cities are allocated 37.5 percent based on where the taxpayer lives.
In fiscal year 2010, the state collected $172 million from the individual income tax, often called the Hall tax."
Also, in tennessee the constitution says we have to balance our budget. Other states, like California, are so f***ing far in debt that the whole US may end up bailing out that state.
Whether states have to balance their budget or not, imo, makes politicians/government a little more cautious in spending $$ that isn't theirs. ( a little, not a lot).
Face it, government is wasteful......If it wasn't wasteful, imo, people wouldn't vote down tax increases for the greater good. But heck, who wants to throw their $$ away ...
Last edited by predfan98: 03-09-2011 at 07:07 PM.
Reason: more
