Tax free shopping spree can end soon.

Methodical wrote in post #12096595
Can you elaborate?

FlyingPhotog said:

In the US, 80% of households have a household income of less than 100K. So that's 80% of households that would see their AZ income taxes rise under that law. The wealthiest 20% are probably paying more than the flat tax rate, so their taxes will fall.

I guess that 80% think it's a fine idea...they're doing the voting.

We're not voting on it unfortunately. It's being ramrodded through our state legislature without a referendum.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12098069
We're not voting on it unfortunately. It's being ramrodded through our state legislature without a referendum.

Aw, shucks. It's bad when "the new kids" think they were elected with a mandate to change everything.

I have never had sales tax and this will not change anything for me, luckily I live in Oregon, no sale tax.

RDKirk wrote in post #12094841
The problem is, when you do the math, that doesn't amount to as much money as any lawmakers want. Most people don't make enough money for 10% to amount to much.

But the government doesn't get it's revenue solely from income tax. If you let the people keep more of their own money, they will spend it or invest it, and those transactions can be taxed which result in a revenue stream for the government. It's a proven fact that revenue increases when taxes are lowered.

And to your point about as much money as lawmakers want, that's too darn bad. I don't make as much as I want, so why should the government be able to take more of my money just because they want to?

tgara wrote in post #12104379
But the government doesn't get it's revenue solely from income tax. If you let the people keep more of their own money, they will spend it or invest it, and those transactions can be taxed which result in a revenue stream for the government. It's a proven fact that revenue increases when taxes are lowered.

So I take it you're not in favor of internet sales taxes.

jkokbaker wrote in post #12098152
I have never had sales tax and this will not change anything for me, luckily I live in Oregon, no sale tax.

Should I move to Oregon ?

Yeah, it's pretty nice here, and no sales tax.

bend is an amazing place.

jkokbaker wrote in post #12105826
Yeah, it's pretty nice here, and no sales tax.

How are your state income taxes and property taxes?

There's no Free Lunch!

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12107186
How are your state income taxes and property taxes?

There's no Free Lunch!

Or they may have another major source of state income, like Alaska's oil. There is no free lunch, but they may be getting someone else to pay for theirs.

I know it all evens out somewhere, the Government will get theirs, our income tax is really high.

RDKirk wrote in post #12104678
So I take it you're not in favor of internet sales taxes.

No. We're taxed enough already in my view. If the state needs more revenue, it can collect it from current transactions or cut other spending.

I would point out that the wealthiest 25% of taxpayers pay 86% of all federal taxes. Yet, many citizens pay no income taxes. My position on the AZ proposal is that it leveling the playing field somewhat. Putting the burden on the top earners just because someone else thinks they can afford it isn't smart policy. That approach causes causes people and wealth to flee the state (as it has in Maryland) resulting in reduced state revenues. In addition, relying on top earners for a big chunk of state revenue causes state budget feasts and famines when the economy turns down, as it has in my state of Connecticut. A more level tax scheme with all citizens paying something is a better way to run things, and more fair, in my view.

Well, certainly, they can afford to pay more. It's silly to argue that someone who makes several orders of magnitude more than the modal income can't afford to pay any larger percentage of his income.

The debate of "fair" is, of course, the crux of the matter. Ultimately, it's not going to be "fair" that matters, but what actually works in the real world of politics and economics.

These are the states with flat tax rates:

Before 2006, six states maintained flat-rate income taxes: Colorado (4.63 percent), Illinois (3.0 percent), Indiana (3.4 percent), Massachusetts (5.3 percent), Michigan (3.07 percent), and Pennsylvania (3.07 percent). Last year, Rhode Island and Utah adopted optional flat taxes of 5.5 and 5.35 percent, respectively.

http://www.hoover.org …oover-digest/article/5980

None of those states is showing an influx of wealthy people, so where are they fleeing to? Moreover, all those states are either in the toilet economically or have an alternate means of support.

RDkirk, Utah is actually one of the strongest states right now, financially. Recently topped Forbes lists for "Best places for business and careers", too. Colorado is also in the top 5 as well, so I am not sure where you are getting your "in the toilet" stats.

tgara wrote in post #12109139
. In addition, relying on top earners for a big chunk of state revenue causes state budget feasts and famines when the economy turns down, as it has in my state of Connecticut. A more level tax scheme with all citizens paying something is a better way to run things, and more fair, in my view.

Any percentage based tax will go down equally when incomes go down across the board. I don't see how taxing 5% of an unemployment check or fast food salary is going to solve the budget crisis. The problem with a flat tax is that the 5% comes off of necessities like food for the poor, and it doesn't for the wealthy. No it is not "fair" to have a progressive tax, but it isn't fair that a large chunk of the population can barely make ends meet.

Not really camera related, though.