http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/01/gov_bobby_jindal_calls_for_eli.html#incart_river_default

Quote :

" Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to eliminate Louisiana's income and corporate taxes and pay for those cuts with increased sales taxes, the governor's office confirmed Thursday. The governor's office has not yet provided the details of the plan. "The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana's workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity," Jindal said in a statement released by his office. "It's time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs." Jindal said the plan would be revenue-neutral and that the goal would be to keep sales taxes "as low and flat as possible." The governor's office has not yet confirmed or denied an article in The Monroe News-Star that reports eliminating the state income tax could require increasing the state sales tax from 4 percent to 7 percent. The governor's full statement on the tax overhaul plan: "We are meeting with every legislator over the coming weeks to discuss the details of the tax reform plan. Our goal is to eliminate all personal income tax and all corporate income tax in a revenue neutral manner. We want to keep the sales tax as low and flat as possible. "Eliminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs. "Tax reform will remove administrative burdens from families and small businesses and improve Louisiana's business prospects; create more business investment opportunities with increased job growth; and raise the state's profile in national business rankings. "The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana's workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity. It's time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs." "

That's right folks. A revenue-neutral plan that puts more money in your pockets.

In other news, 5 - 2 = 5

Why has this joker not been completely laughed out of the party?

1/10/2013 3:41:03 PM

They aren't laughing him out of the party because they are too busy cheering him on - a lot of republicans support flat/regressive tax structures








edit: It is somewhat interesting to see if removing the "accounting costs" of paying taxes (both households and businesses) is somehow a net benefit or even a close draw. I'm just glad they are running that experiment in another state and not mine



[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM. Reason : edit]

1/10/2013 3:55:51 PM

The people who make a lot of money, either investment or income, generally spend more money. A higher sales tax pulls more money from them than income tax increases.
Medium and low income families that don't spend nearly as much, should net positive. This assumes that they aren't living outside their means and buying things they can't afford.

before someone tries to throw in complaints about groceries and such, those usually do not fall under sales tax, but rather consumption taxes in most cases.

1/10/2013 4:16:08 PM

to me seems like a pretty decent idea to me.

[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2013 4:28:30 PM

poor people may spend less money overall, but they spend 100% of their paycheck (living paycheck to paycheck). Therefore their tax rate will be 7%.

A rich person spends a lot of money, but they also invest a lot of money (atleast the intelligent ones). So only a portion of their income is taxed, and their overall tax rate will be something less than 7% (ie. if they spend 70% of their income and save the other 30%, they will only be taxed at ~5% on all of their income)


In Louisiana those in lower income brackets ALREADY pay a higher rate than those in the top bracket, so this actually might help to even the field lol, but I doubt by much:

[image]http://[/image]




[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM. Reason : lol chart]

1/10/2013 4:34:17 PM

not if rates are lower for necessity items

1/10/2013 4:39:09 PM

^this will end up helping some, especially for the very poor. In the end the accounting will look similar to what I posted IMO. It will probably kill the middle class the most.

1/10/2013 4:45:45 PM

Quote :

"The people who make a lot of money, either investment or income, generally spend more money. A higher sales tax pulls more money from them than income tax increases. Medium and low income families that don't spend nearly as much, should net positive. This assumes that they aren't living outside their means and buying things they can't afford."

Poor people spend more both in rates and as a total. The spend more as a rate because they have to spend more of their income. They spend more as a total because there are more of them. The only way they don't spend more is per capita, which is irrelevant. Income taxes are (for the most part) progressive, sales taxes are regressive.

1/10/2013 4:47:14 PM

Why is everyone so concerned with the percent?

Currently (Income and capitol gains)
Guy A makes 3,500,000 and pays 630,000 in taxes (18%)
Buy B makes 35,000 and pays 2,100 in taxes (6%)

Yet Guy A is the bad guy here?

The proposal says:
Guy A pays 7% on everything he buys. May not be over 630,00, but realistically more will be invested if it isn't going straight to taxes. This helps the economy.
Guy B pays 7% on what he buys. It could be more or less, depending on what he purchases.

1/10/2013 5:05:20 PM

Poor guys have a lot more things they need to buy, their necessities are a much higher percent, it's an unequal burden

1/10/2013 5:22:59 PM

I would argue that they have the same amount of needs.
630 Thousand vs. 2 Thousand.
I think his 'share' is long paid.

I paid 24% income tax last year, and I don't complain that I am part of the group paying 70% of the country's taxes, or that people who make a lot more than me pay a smaller percentage. They still paid far more than I even make in a year.

[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2013 5:54:22 PM

They do have the same needs, which is why sales taxes are regressive

Kind of the point really

1/10/2013 6:32:21 PM

Quote :

"Poor guys have a lot more things they need to buy"

Which is it again?

1/10/2013 6:41:45 PM

poorly written
Try this: a much larger percentage of things the poor guys buy are things they have to buy

1/10/2013 6:48:17 PM

Yet we have an employee at my plant that makes $16,000 a year on a new Iphone.....

Actual needs, and perceived needs are two very different things.

In actual needs, a person can easily survive on a little over $11k/year in NC.
The problem lies in a persons desire for luxuries.
A person making that amount of money should not be in a single family dwelling with 3 kids which is where society is seeing most of the problems.
Granted, this is just my personal experience and not a statistically significant study.

1/10/2013 6:55:50 PM

Oh, so this is the part of the argument you concede you are dumb and talk about poor people with Cadillacs and rims

1/10/2013 6:57:56 PM

just my experiences.

Is this the part where you get frustrated and start calling me names again?

1/10/2013 7:34:05 PM

I enjoy making fun of dumb people, don't hold it against me

The difference is I'm also happy to tell you why you're dumb

1/10/2013 7:45:58 PM

Quote :

"Guy A pays 7% on everything he buys. May not be over 630,00, but realistically more will be invested if it isn't going straight to taxes. This helps the economy. Guy B pays 7% on what he buys. It could be more or less, depending on what he purchases."

The look at what the effective rate would be.

Guy B spends 50% of his income on stuff that would be taxed while Guy B spends only 15% of his income, meaning Guy A is taxed only 1% while Guy B is taxed 3.5%, thus making it regressive.

1/10/2013 7:54:26 PM

Crime in that state is already high.
I'm sure police funding won't be effected by this!!!

1/10/2013 9:43:43 PM

dtownral calling someone dumb...that's fucking rich. is he a "dumb ass"?

also, shouldn't you be out stealing shit?

1/10/2013 9:50:53 PM

I'm sorry that you don't know what regressive means

[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM. Reason : "Dumbass" is not the correct spelling, it's dumb-ass or dumb ass. Dumb-ass.]

1/10/2013 10:11:49 PM

Quote :

"Granted, this is just my personal experience and not a statistically significant study. "

Societal policies SHOULD be based on people's anecdotal personal experiences...

1/10/2013 10:17:45 PM

Quote :

"Currently (Income and capitol gains) Guy A makes 3,500,000 and pays 630,000 in taxes (18%) Buy B makes 35,000 and pays 2,100 in taxes (6%)"

Those percentages dont reconcile with the table that Terdferguson posted (assuming its true).

1/10/2013 10:29:17 PM

The chart doesn't specify at total estimated taxes or income taxes.
I used an estimated total taxes for my numbers

1/10/2013 11:08:08 PM

Quote :

"Poor guys have a lot more things they need to buy, their necessities are a much higher percent, it's an unequal burden "

No they don't. Everyone NEEDS to BUY the same things; clothes, food, shelter.

Everything else is "optional."

A poor person's necessities will be a higher percentage of their income vs someone else who makes more money; that's an obvious mathematical deduction that an elementary school student could make. But to call it an unequal burden? I'm sorry you are afraid of hard work and discipline.


[Edited on January 10, 2013 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2013 11:20:09 PM

^ what percentage of the country is "afraid of hard work and discipline"?

1/10/2013 11:54:30 PM

47%

1/11/2013 12:12:43 AM

So you all acknowledge its regressive, you're just okay with that?

1/11/2013 6:10:39 AM

The chart I posted is The effective tax rate for each state, so it includes income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The point of the report I took it from is that a majority of state tax structures are already pretty regressive. Moving more of your revenue to sales tax from a progressive income tax (which is what LA has?) will just make that skew worse.

1/11/2013 7:17:48 AM

yeah, and usually the defense is that its flat and not regressive (it's not). i'm a little surprised so many are actually describing it as regressive but saying that's fair or okay, i'm wondering if they realize that's what they are describing.

1/11/2013 8:19:39 AM

Quote :

"I'm sorry you are afraid of hard work and discipline."

This is trolling, right? You don't actually believe that all, or even most, poor people are poor because they're lazy and undisciplined, do you?

1/11/2013 8:31:17 AM

Some of them do.

Also, not Christian enough

1/11/2013 8:42:31 AM

I think it's pretty sad that the people of Louisiana will now look to neighboring Mississippi as an improvement in standard of living.

Please dear God let this happen so that we can have a case study of how TERRIBLE an idea this is. What happens when you drive all of the cheap labor away from your state?

1/11/2013 9:12:42 AM

Well I guess I can now see exactly why Jindal hasn't been laughed out of the party.

1/11/2013 9:16:40 AM

The funniest/saddest/most infuriating part of this is that it's a perfect example of how poorly the right understands the crisis we're in. Oh, hey, an economic problem? Must be all those taxes on the rich. Surely penalizing consumption wont have any adverse affects, its' not like there's such a thing as a "demand-side" crisis, right? Bahahaha

It's a purely ideological conviction, divorced from the real present world going on around him.

1/11/2013 9:23:03 AM

Let's tax poor people at a higher rate and then refuse to offer them subsidized federal health insurance! I foresee many McDonald's closing down in LA.

^ Totally agreed. I just cannot believe how completely detached from reality so many conservatives are. It's either completely blind allegiance to a political ideology, actual effects on the economy be damned, or it's some kind of structural difference in their brains that makes them interpret statistics differently. I am just completely bewildered by their beliefs. It's like people from two parallel dimensions are somehow living in the same world.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ]

1/11/2013 9:24:15 AM

The sales tax in NC is what now? 7.5%?
So the proposal raises sales tax to a level that 'we' know, and gets rid of income tax.
That actually sounds pretty awesome.

1/11/2013 9:39:10 AM

1. North Carolina has a better economy than Louisiana.

2. Despite my opposition to much of conservative ideology, the idea that keeping taxes stable does maintain quite a bit of validity. Changing the rules of the game will necessarily change the way the game is played. Changing this policy will necessarily harm the poor, who are already the worst off.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 9:44 AM. Reason : ]

1/11/2013 9:43:38 AM

So there aren't any vouchers or anything for the poor?

It must be hell trying to plan a budget when what you get can vary so much too.

1/11/2013 9:48:37 AM

Quote :

"That actually sounds pretty awesome."

That's because he's promising the moon.

Taxes are going to be drastically altered, and yet it will remain revenue neutral. More often than not that means a shifting of the burden. Do you think you're safe?

Do you not understand what revenue neutral means?

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2013 10:16:57 AM

Tennessee has this system. Having lived there, I much prefer it.

Anyone who thinks having the sales tax rate of NC but having no income tax is a bad deal for the poor (or anyone)
Clearly has some perspective issues. Food stamps and rent assistance already subsidize the costs of basic needs for low income folks.

1/11/2013 11:25:46 AM

You're right, the poor are really living it up.

1/11/2013 11:28:16 AM

taiwatt: The more money to make, the lower percentage of your income generally goes to consumption. So, consumption-based taxes will affect you more, the poorer you are. That includes the middle class as compared to the rich. This kind of taxation system moves the tax burden down. The rich will pay less, and that lost revenue will come from the middle and lower classes.

Do you really think that you need to pay more so the rich can pay less? That's really what this comes down to if it's indeed revenue-neutral.

Is this what the GOP has come to? They've evolved from kneejerk anti-taxation rhetoric to openly advocating regressive taxation.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2013 11:33:26 AM

Queue endless numbers of grocery and retail stores popping up just across the border of Louisiana, and a 20 mile radius dead-zone within Louisiana.

I like the idea at first glance, but yeah...

1/11/2013 11:49:54 AM

Tennessee has this system, and they are doing quite well from what it looks like.
Quite a few states have no income tax, correct? Are they all failing and enslaving the poor?

1/11/2013 12:47:45 PM

In the chart I posted, the top nine states are the only nine states without income taxes

1/11/2013 12:57:44 PM

Washington State minimum wage: $9.19
Part time job: 13.3k
Full time job: 19.1k

Full time - taxes= 15.7k
That is plenty for a single person to live on. I had 8 years of living at that level or lower.

1/11/2013 1:23:39 PM

I guess anyone who isn't single just needs to throw their kids or parents out on the street then.

1/11/2013 1:52:13 PM

I, too, believe that the minimum amount a person could possibly make should be able to support a full family.

If you are a full grown adult and making the minimum wage, you are doing it wrong. There are plenty of opportunities to better yourself over time or move to places that will offer better wages or lower cost of living for the same pay. Stagnating under the same circumstances and waiting for the government to force a change to make your life better (at the cost of the middle class) is pitiful. Should the government help families in need like this? Absolutely, but only to a certain extent.

[Edited on January 11, 2013 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2013 2:11:25 PM