The disproportionate tax burden

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BlueK

You're now talking about local taxes. I'm talking about federal. Nothing would have to change with how states and cities finance themselves.

Still, the federal government would be incredibly self-interested in shaping policy so that states and locales maximize its sales-tax collection opportunities. The beast will be fed. I can't think of a credible argument that a consumption tax wouldn't drastically exacerbate what is already a huge problem --- commercial sprawl and and municipal competition for retail dollars.

Cities would give away the farm to land the big boxes so that they'd get the promised federal subsidy given to every locale that increases retail square footage . . . or something like that.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Levin

Still, the federal government would be incredibly self-interested in shaping policy so that states and locales maximize its sales-tax collection opportunities. The beast will be fed. I can't think of a credible argument that a consumption tax wouldn't drastically exacerbate what is already a huge problem --- commercial sprawl and and municipal competition for retail dollars.

Cities would give away the farm to land the big boxes so that they'd get the promised federal subsidy given to every locale that increases retail square footage . . . or something like that.

It seems you're going in circles. First you worry that retail spending will drop and now you're worrying that it will increase too much and result in urban sprawl.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BlueK

It seems you're going in circles. First you worry that retail spending will drop and now you're worrying that it will increase too much and result in urban sprawl.

Two different forces at work.

Consumers --- more likely to save b/c great opportunity to increase income by consuming less.

The Federal Government --- the beast must be fed and so it will create policy so that locales compete for and subsidize commercial development.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If the paper cites an opinion, then attack the opinion.

Instead, you just attack the source.

Tex, in the instances I recall where you posted an article that I bashed, the paper itself was the one giving the opinion (which they clearly identified as opinion). That isn't a "source" in the sense of a source that is stating facts. It is just another voice giving just another opinion. It is astonishing you can't figure that out.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex, in the instances I recall where you posted an article that I bashed, the paper itself was the one giving the opinion (which they clearly identified as opinion). That isn't a "source" in the sense of a source that is stating facts. It is just another voice giving just another opinion.

Right. And your response amounted to, "What the hell would they know?"

You don't provide any kind of interesting rebuttal, or even an alternative viewpoint. You just attack the source.

Anyway, I'm not going to get started on the "dance of death" as some have amusingly called it. I just found it funny that you get all hot-and-bothered about bad sourcing, when you yourself are guilty of the same.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

Two different forces at work.

Consumers --- more likely to save b/c great opportunity to increase income by consuming less.

The Federal Government --- the beast must be fed and so it will create policy so that locales compete for and subsidize commercial development.

Did you flunk econ 110?

Consumers will consume less because they have less but they won't have anything to save. If tax structures and family structure encourage savings, they save.

But reduction of consumption does not translate into saving money in terms of retaining savings in bank or financial accounts. Do you really believe this, or was this an oversight?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Right. And your response amounted to, "What the hell would they know?"

You don't provide any kind of interesting rebuttal, or even an alternative viewpoint. You just attack the source.

Anyway, I'm not going to get started on the "dance of death" as some have amusingly called it. I just found it funny that you get all hot-and-bothered about bad sourcing, when you yourself are guilty of the same.

Link?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Link?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/search....archid=269346\

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Just a bit of good natured ribbing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

http://cougarguard.com/forum/search....archid=269346\

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Just a bit of good natured ribbing.

lol! Nice. Probably better than Tex will do.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Did you flunk econ 110?

Consumers will consume less because they have less but they won't have anything to save. If tax structures and family structure encourage savings, they save.

But reduction of consumption does not translate into saving money in terms of retaining savings in bank or financial accounts. Do you really believe this, or was this an oversight?

There's no more income tax. That essentially means the consumer decides how much in taxes he will pay b/c the government doesn't take out a mandatory slice beforehand. I see that as an opportunity for a net gain. Instead of the gov't automatically taking 30% out, I now have discretion how much I pay out in taxes through my consumption choices. And, as for myself, I would consume less and save more in order to capitalize on the opportunity for a windfall.

That's what we'd been discussing in previous posts. Is that reasoning entirely off?