I have an idea

[Galatea]

Then define "luxuries." Because you know what I consider "luxury items?" Teddy bears, cell phones, Internet access, computers, cable TV, a car, concerts, restaurants, tablets, buying music, shrimp, streak, flounder, scallops, subscriptions, outside furniture, candy, plants, skate boards, TVs, paper plates, etc.

(Funny you should say that. The premise of my novel series is the government banned luxury items. Anything anyone doesn't need is a luxury items. Little did the government understand, stuffed animals are alive. Because of that, I've spent quite a lot of time determining what is and what isn't a luxury item. Knick knacks? Luxury items! )

The problem with determining what should and shouldn't be taxed, as far as consumer goods go, is someone is always richer than you, and someone is always poorer than you. So, who gets to decide who gets punished for their money?

That's a valid point. Of course, luxury would have to be quantified. Most people would think shelling out $500 for one item would be kind of extravagant. So, that is something I would define as a "luxury". I mean, personally, I wouldn't buy a purse for $500. To me, that is too expensive. If someone else does, good on them. They could well afford a 10% luxury tax and pay $50 extra dollars. I did not suggest services, only luxury goods- stuff that people don't need. This is what I'd do if I ruled the world. But of course, I don't.

 

[JaumeJ]

The grain of the OP is simple. It is a warning to all who believe the Word to be anxious in season and out.

It was not difficult for many to see the coming collapse of the monetary systems as early as 1969. One of the biggest steps twords the crumbing of all was taking the dollar off of the gold standard by R.M. Nixon leaving the dollar and all currencies to loat with no gold backing. This was an early dot com manner of regarding currencies. Each world currency now is valied only by the imaginations of men, and theimaginations of men have proved to destroy all. Or do you believe mankind will deep this tired old world going in spite of what is written about the future of it by the prophets? If this latter is the case with any following this thread, he/she is not paying attention.

 

[Galatea]

Its corruption alright and not just of economics but corruption of ideals and beliefs.

Once these wealthy people get wealthy they buy or build entire communities specifically for the purpose of enforcing their own beliefs.

Beliefs like hate,greed,and lust,which are in direct opposition of Gods word.

So its going against Gods word that is directly causing the degeneration of society.

It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. Rich, poor, and people in between will do all sorts of things for the love of money. As long as we are in this world, there will be corruption. That is what we are not to love, this world system- how it works.

 

[JaumeJ]

Remember the pivotal word in this teaching is "love." You are so on to the way things are, have always been and will be magnified to the neth.

Everything is taxed...follow the money.

If I, not the brightest bulb in the ligh fixture, can see the demise of the West along with the failure of monetary systems as early as early as my University years, all who are in Jesus Christ must know these things also, for it was the Holy Spirit directing my understanding, still is I believe.

It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. Rich, poor, and people in between will do all sorts of things for the love of money. As long as we are in this world, there will be corruption. That is what we are not to love, this world system- how it works.

 

[Depleted]

The grain of the OP is simple. It is a warning to all who believe the Word to be anxious in season and out.

It was not difficult for many to see the coming collapse of the monetary systems as early as 1969. One of the biggest steps twords the crumbing of all was taking the dollar off of the gold standard by R.M. Nixon leaving the dollar and all currencies to loat with no gold backing. This was an early dot com manner of regarding currencies. Each world currency now is valied only by the imaginations of men, and theimaginations of men have proved to destroy all. Or do you believe mankind will deep this tired old world going in spite of what is written about the future of it by the prophets? If this latter is the case with any following this thread, he/she is not paying attention.

Currency is reimagined every 30 years. We did go off the gold standard in the 60's. We changed again 30 years later, and now we're due again.

Funny thing about America. It's not our gold that keeps us rich. It's our craftsmanship. Whatever product or service we help make, we are determined to make it the best we can. THAT's what the world notices. That's our promissary note.

 

[Depleted]

That's a valid point. Of course, luxury would have to be quantified. Most people would think shelling out $500 for one item would be kind of extravagant. So, that is something I would define as a "luxury". I mean, personally, I wouldn't buy a purse for $500. To me, that is too expensive. If someone else does, good on them. They could well afford a 10% luxury tax and pay $50 extra dollars. I did not suggest services, only luxury goods- stuff that people don't need. This is what I'd do if I ruled the world. But of course, I don't.

I don't buy purses for over $30, and it took me a while to go above $20. So, you think a $500 purse is expensive? I think a $50 purse is. And, it's not about affording it. It's about needing it. If it's 10% more because of tax, that means I'm not buying a purse above $27.

 

[Depleted]

I should have qualified my remark to mean able-bodied people who sit around on welfare.

Welfare-to-work made that a thing of the past. We weren't even allowed to go on Welfare unless we had a way off it. The way off it was Disability. If John lost his Disability appeals, we would have lost Welfare too.

 

[Depleted]

Absolutely, computers should be taxed, huge televisions should be taxed, I would say a luxury item would be something at a certain price point. Let's say any item that costs $500.00 or above is considered a "luxury". If I am well off enough to buy a piece of jewelry worth $500 or more, hey- I'm doing pretty well and can afford a 10% federal luxury tax on top of my city and state taxes. I did not mean to suggest that EVERY nonessential is a luxury. Of course, shampoo or a $20 watch might be a luxury item for some, but let's set the price point where an item would be considered a luxury for MOST.

Are you talking just 10% flat tax or 10% on luxury items?

Because, what you're really saying is the rich, not only have to wait until April or May before they can stop giving all their money to the federal government, but they should actually pay even more months paying for what they can afford to pay for?

You're rich compared to me. (If you're making part-time minimum wages, you're rich compared to me.) How would you like to spend an extra month each year paying "your fair share" from my POV?

By very nature of how we live, if I paid 10% on sales tax, I am tithing the federal government just like like the rich person is tithing their fair share. The difference is the government gets much more from them than me. That's fair, and yet that's not what the government is doing.

They've already declared anyone with a car to be rich. A gallon of gas really costs $.49. They've declared anyone with phones are rich. My cellphone costs $10 a month. I pay another 50% for taxes. They've declared anyone with Internet access as rich. My plan is $60 a month. My taxes are another 32%. The government has already declared most of us rich. Are you all that sure you want them to keep deciding who the rich are?

One of the lines from Sleepy Hollow (the TV show) that I liked was when Ichabod Crane realized how much sales tax was in modern Massachusetts. He said, "Good Lord! We started a war over less than half that!"

That's how I feel about the American government. Instead of making sure they can squeeze out every last dime from us, how about they learn how to budget instead? Give me their budget and I can cut it enough that the rich aren't leaving our shores for cheaper labor. After all, I was hired by a poor man. I just wasn't paid by him, because he couldn't afford to advertise, so he had a business by title, just not a business that made anything. Not any profit -- anything! I always got paid from "rich people."

 

[santuzza]

How's this for genius: Try taxing everyone at the same rate. Seems fair to me. Why punish the wealthy for being successful? Why allow the poor to not contribute anything to the benefits they receive from their government? Let's all pay our fair share.

 

[Galatea]

I don't buy purses for over $30, and it took me a while to go above $20. So, you think a $500 purse is expensive? I think a $50 purse is. And, it's not about affording it. It's about needing it. If it's 10% more because of tax, that means I'm not buying a purse above $27.

I probably stated my idea poorly. A luxury tax on goods would have to be quantified. Because, like you say, what you consider a luxury and what I consider a luxury might be two different price points. There's no way I'd pay $500 for a purse (unless it belonged to Elizabeth Taylor or something). But I know people who do shell out that kind of money for purses. It would be a "materialisim tax" if you don't like the term "luxury". So, if people want to buy high priced things, they could be taxed for being materialistic. This is not necessarily a tax on the rich, as a wealthy person could be rather frugal. I say $500 because for most people, $500 is a whopping amount to pay on one good.

I just think if you've got the kind of dough to spend $500 on a purse, $50 more is not going to hurt your pocket book too much. So, I would propose an extra ten percent only on goods that are priced at $500 or more. No one buying $30 purses would be affected at all.

 

[Galatea]

Are you talking just 10% flat tax or 10% on luxury items?

Because, what you're really saying is the rich, not only have to wait until April or May before they can stop giving all their money to the federal government, but they should actually pay even more months paying for what they can afford to pay for?

You're rich compared to me. (If you're making part-time minimum wages, you're rich compared to me.) How would you like to spend an extra month each year paying "your fair share" from my POV?

By very nature of how we live, if I paid 10% on sales tax, I am tithing the federal government just like like the rich person is tithing their fair share. The difference is the government gets much more from them than me. That's fair, and yet that's not what the government is doing.

They've already declared anyone with a car to be rich. A gallon of gas really costs $.49. They've declared anyone with phones are rich. My cellphone costs $10 a month. I pay another 50% for taxes. They've declared anyone with Internet access as rich. My plan is $60 a month. My taxes are another 32%. The government has already declared most of us rich. Are you all that sure you want them to keep deciding who the rich are?

One of the lines from Sleepy Hollow (the TV show) that I liked was when Ichabod Crane realized how much sales tax was in modern Massachusetts. He said, "Good Lord! We started a war over less than half that!"

That's how I feel about the American government. Instead of making sure they can squeeze out every last dime from us, how about they learn how to budget instead? Give me their budget and I can cut it enough that the rich aren't leaving our shores for cheaper labor. After all, I was hired by a poor man. I just wasn't paid by him, because he couldn't afford to advertise, so he had a business by title, just not a business that made anything. Not any profit -- anything! I always got paid from "rich people."

I think what many people see is that the super wealthy use tax loopholes all the time to evade paying their share of income tax. The tax records of the past few presidential candidates (both Democrat and Republican) kind of showed they were not paying what the current tax code demands. So the brunt of the income tax falls on middle and lower class people who are not savvy enough to evade paying income tax.

I would not say a 10% tax on everything. I would propose a 10% tax on goods costing $500 or more. If I was a mink coat salesman, and the government knew how many mink coats I have, they know how much federal tax I am supposed to pay, therefore, the people buying my mink coats would have to pay the luxury tax. Let's say my coat costs $2500 and Kanye wants to buy it for Kim. I'd most certainly make him pay the extra $250 as I am a business owner and don't want to take a hit. Where Kim and Kanye can wriggle out of income taxes, they would not be able to wriggle out of luxury taxes.

Yes, if I am doing well and buy a new car, then I should be doing well enough to put in some money for you, too. I don't have a problem with taxes, per se, but how they are used. I am against abortion, and it kills me to think of my money going to Planned Parenthood. I have no problem with welfare or food stamps or Medicaid (although I know there is some corruption, there). There are many people who need these programs.

 

[Zen]

A poor person avoids tax and ends up in prison.

A rich person who owes this country over £1billion can just refuse to pay, and get taken to expensive restaurants by government representatives to negotiate how much they can get.

Here's a quote I just found.

Another protester, Ed Greens, 20 from north west London, said: "We know that Topshop owes the Government £1.2 billion tax; together with companies like Vodafone, big businesses owe £126 billion."

But it's totally OK, because it's "SIR Philip Green"

A cool revolutionary idea, throw them in prison until they pay.

 

[Zen]

How's this for genius: Try taxing everyone at the same rate. Seems fair to me. Why punish the wealthy for being successful? Why allow the poor to not contribute anything to the benefits they receive from their government? Let's all pay our fair share.

A poor person paying $500 of his $5000 salary sounds fair.

A rich person paying $1billion of his $10billion salary sounds fair.

Is it? The poor person can't really afford to do much. Where as the rich person has $9billion and interest rates will recover hundreds of times what the poor person can ever hope to see.

 

[JaumeJ]

When multi-billionaires who make their fortune daily on th consumer base of the working and working poor dowss not pay into the health, education and welfare funds at the same rate his own dwindling consumer base pays, it is doomed to bankruptcy.

When the very wealhy triumph in finally destoying the working class and their own consumer base, they are going to have a trude awakening. Sitting on their mountains of fain, they will look at each other and ask, "Where are the consumers who have made us so wealthy?"

This is not an idea from some extreme leftist nor from any other form of politics. This is common sense derived from believing God, and all He has given His children to understand.

I find all political thought idolatry. Jesus Christ, and His Body remaining here in this age, have nothing to do with Caesar or Herod.

If you thing God is waving the flag of your country or any other, you have no idea Who He is nor Who His Son is. If this is the case, repent and come to the Kingdom and worship God, not nations of this age.