I will agree that, in concept, a consumption tax could be a good idea. Really, there already is that. Don't we already pay taxes on everything? The more you buy, the more you pay. The biggest problem I see with that is our purchasing system has changed a lot in the past few years, mainly the internet. It is a lot easier to buy something and not pay taxes on it, now. If a true consumption tax is put in place, there will have to be some major changes in the current purchasing structure for it to work. If people know that they can buy almost anything out of state and not pay taxes on the item, seeing as how taxes on items will have to substantially increase, don't you think they will utilize this channel more and the same thing happens. Less revenue from the ones who know how to manipulate the system. Some things are difficult to purchase in this way, such as fuel and some food items, but a considerable amount of consumables could be avoided with our current system. If anything changes, it needs to be well thought out and as equal as possible, by percentage. I really don't know that a consumption tax would be the way to go. That would have to assume that people in all brackets spend about the same percentage on "stuff." That may get more from the people living off the system, but it may let others rape the system. I don't think that's fair, either. It needs to be equal by percentage, not dollar amount.

Consumption tax is the closest to "fair" that the country will ever get. It's the only way to get everyone involved with paying their share. Drug dealers, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (legislation pending) and liberal cabinet members will pay what everyone is paying. That should (key word), help keep inflation in check. I won't go in to much detail but it's as simple as goods go up, people won't buy, especially if they are paying taxes based on the price of the goods.

Regarding apples and oranges and narrow minds. If you believe federal and state dollars aren't closely related then I need to talk to you about some swamp land for sale. There is a whole big world outside of Talladega County...and believe it or not, it's not flat.

I will try and spare you the economics lesson, but the info I posted brings light to the idea that 4% isn't what you made it appear to be by adding the bigger picture. This is all that is expected out of low income families and in the big scheme of taxes (federal, state and local) it's trivial by comparison. I don't enjoy paying taxes just as much as the next person, but some money is needed to keep the ship upright. I'm willing to pay what I have to (I would rather it be less, of course) and I expect the same from everyone no matter what their income level may be. The grocery tax, gas tax, cigarette tax and alcohol tax is sometimes the only way to get some people to contribute so I say so be it.

See, the federal taxes are apples, and the state taxes are oranges, and last I heard, we were talking about oranges. Federal taxes are not the issue here-whether the Alabama tax system, specifically the 4% tax on food, is regressive-that's the issue we (and the article) were discussing. Personally, I, like civilized, think a federal flat tax is the right approach. Also, yes, the "facts" are from the internet, but in the case of the sources quoted, from paper documents converted to PDF via Acrobat, without interpretation by wingnuts on either the left or right. To update the phrase popularized by Mark Twain: lies, damned lies, and websites. Finally, the figures for the 100K range:

Income group: 80-95%

Income range: $78,000-153,000

Average income: $103,200

Total state taxes as % of income: 6.6% (3.5% sales and excise taxes, 1% property taxes, 2.8% income taxes minus .8% federal tax deduction offset)

I didn't see it go in. Did you see it? I didn't see it.

Just so you know, I think the government already pays for cell phones for some.

For the two of you stating so many "facts" from internet sites, you do realize it's the internet, right? It's not a fact just because you read it somewhere. There are so many statistics out there to prove anyone's view from any angle. The "fact" is that we need to start moving toward a flat tax system and no refunds. You pay what you owe, period. Do away with all of the crazy deductions and loopholes, which most people try their best to take advantage of, especially those over the $200k range. Those of us below that really don't have any major tax breaks. Anyway, I don't care about the 4%. I can live without it. I'm sure the government can live without it. The point is that we are taxed to death, and 'till death. Repealing any tax is never going to bother me. It simply puts more of what I have worked for back into my pocket to do with as I wish. If we aren't going to do a flat tax, let it be like tipping for service. Pay what you feel like the government deserves. Let's see how many really care about paying taxes then. I bet it will be like a lot of people in church when the tithe bowl comes around and you sheepishly throw in a $5, as if that is 10 percent of what you earned for the week! There will always be those that depend solely on the government to survive, because they can. They have been trained on how to do so. There will always be people that simply need the assistance of the government. Finally, there will always be those of us that constantly gripe about the government taking so much of our money, that we worked for and earned, to fund stuff that seems unfair. The "fact" is that it is unfair. Deal with it. That's just the way it is. As long as there is a system, there is a way to manipulate it from whatever tax bracket you fit into and we will all be here forever pointing fingers at the other.

FLAT RATE TAX for everyone, with no deductions! No more finger pointing. That's about as fair as it gets. If you make more money, you pay more taxes, but the same percentage.

Where to begin...

Before I get to sources and facts about taxes and percentages, let's start with some eye opening information. Carey says the poor in AL pay 10.2% of their income on taxes ranging from excise to income taxes. I am not disclosing my income but I just paid 30% of my income to NObama and Pelosi. The "poor" paid little or nothing.

Now it gets fun...

Half of Americans pay no income tax in this country. http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0412/Tax-day-101-Who-pays-no-income-taxes-on-April-15

HALF, yes again...half. This is the same half that complains about paying 4% for their groceries.

The people not paying any federal/state income tax or very little still receive the majority of government funding per head count.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

-"America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households receives roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid. Households with middle-incomes receive $1.30 per tax dollar, and America’s highest-earning households receive $0.41 per tax dollar;

-Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in taxes in 2004. Overall between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending"

Still wanna argue 4% is too much on the poor?

The idea that the poor pay 10% of their income in taxes in the state of Alabama, whether that be excise or any other tax, is true but still laughable when it comes to how much money they receive and take advantage of from the federal government.

He shoots...he scores!

REMATCH!!! Now, if we can get others on here to cite their sorce....

I'd like you to cite the source for your contention that "the poor don't pay state income taxes". It's a well known fact that Alabama has one of the most regressive tax systems in the US, ranked number ten in the latest (Nov 2009) study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ITEP's figures show the the lowest 20% income group - less than $16,000 income, with an average income of $10,400 -spend an average of 10.4% of their income on taxes (7.8% on sales and excise taxes, 1.3% on property taxes, and 1.1% on income taxes). The 95th thru 99th% income group- $153,000-384,000, with an average income of $211,500 - spend an average of 4.9% of their income on taxes (2.1% on sales and excise taxes, 1.2% on property taxes, and 2.6% on income taxes, minus a 1% offset from federal tax deduction). So the actual tax load on the bottom 20% is more than twice that of the 95th-99th%, and -even more germane to the argument- the sales and excise tax load is almost four times as great. Are those enough "facts" for you? See more at http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf for a state to state comparison.

Point...Set... and Match to downnout. Unfair competition though, he/she used logic, common sense, and "supported" FACTS.

"No, the key here is the word "regressive", which means that the poor pay a disproportionately large share of the tax. Figures from the US Dept of Labor show the average food bill for a family of four (as of March 2008) of $8,513 per year, or $709 per month. That's roughly 20% of the $43,000 median income, and I have no trouble believing that percentage holds true for most of us"

This statement, under the guidelines of the study you used as a source, is completely false. Not an argument, its common sense. I pointed out facts that make that statement null and void. When you base numbers like 20% on an average, know what the average is being derived from. You failed to mention, while stating these numbers, that the poor are being compared to those making $200k annually and spending thousands more on food, whether its out to eat or coffee each morning. I dare say the poor spend half or less than half of the $709/month you stated. In turn, they are no where near 20% of their annual income on "groceries".

And yes, I am supporting the grocery tax.

Read my comments regarding the fact that the "poor" don't pay state or federal taxes annually. They use the same roads, schools, etc. and yet they complain about contributing as much as 4% on food while contributing nothing else. Here's a thought...if you can take that on, take the average cell phone bill the poor will be paying for their teenager to text all day and compare that to the tax. I may have just made the mistake of you now wanting me to pay for the cell phone bill as well.

Keep in mind that though it is said quite often, nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it!

I'm not sure I understand your argument-what's the difference where the food is consumed, unless maybe you're saying that over $200,000 couples really are spending $40,000 per year eating out, and are therefore spending the same percentage of their income on food as the poor?

As far as state to state comparisons, I don't know where we rank; I do know we're paying 4% more than we have to, regardless. Are you really defending this tax? Even the grocery association is against it. You must be one of those lucky $200K types...

A few things Carey forgot (hahaha) to mention when posting numbers. The US Dept of Labor includes all food purchases in their 2008 study. This includes all meals enjoyed outside of the home. This number also includes Starbucks visits or any other coffee shop visit as long as the business sales some type of pastry or other food item.

Also, the study shows that the average is taken from all 50 states. Do you think it's logical to use the average of food prices in AL and NY? GA and CA? These differences vary up in to the thousands of dollars per state.

Hello everybody just thought id drop you a line to let yall know ashley cousins ,special master for REEF will take your calls according to my sources.If the stink gets too bad or someone gets horribly injured because of REEF her phone number is 334 /271/0400. Day or night .Also if you call please invite her to come on up and smell what her employer is cooking.

Sorry to be so late in replying, but someone had to go to the IRL race, right?

Anyway, I did read HR 3590, Sec. 5210, as passed, which calls for creation of a Ready Reserve of doctors and other health professionals to be called up in time of national emergency and to serve under the command of the Surgeon General. Probably scrubs and white lab coats would be more appropriate than brown shirts. Didn't find it all that threatening, to be honest; probably could have used such a component in NYC after 9/11, or on the Gulf coast after Katrina and Rita.

As for the democratic platform stuff, as Jerry Maguire would say, "show me the money", or in this case, give me a source. I looked through both the 2004 and 2008 Democratic platforms, and could find nothing even close.

No, the key here is the word "regressive", which means that the poor pay a disproportionately large share of the tax. Figures from the US Dept of Labor show the average food bill for a family of four (as of March 2008) of $8,513 per year, or $709 per month. That's roughly 20% of the $43,000 median income, and I have no trouble believing that percentage holds true for most of us. I do have trouble believing that a couple earning $200,000 per year spends $40,000 per year on groceries, so the impact of the tax is much higher on the poor.

As for the "distribution of wealth" thing, how's this for an example? As a homeowner, I pay property taxes based on 10% of the appraised value of my home. Large landowners like US Steel, US Pipe, etc. pay less than $3 per acre for unimproved land, based on current use-even though the market value of that land may be $1 million per acre. Why no hue and cry, no angry letters to the editor over that, an issue which affects 99% of Alabamians? In essence, we're subsidizing large landowners property taxes. Corporate freeloaders should be regarded with the same disdain we have for individual freeloaders.

Finally, one should guard against making generalizations like "all Democrats", "all liberals", or, for that matter, "all Republicans" or "all conservatives". Such generalizations might lead one to believe, based on the actions of a relative few, that "all Tea Party members":

-regard Sen. Joseph McCarthy as a patron saint

-consider "the founding fathers" to be Weaver, McVeigh, and Rudolph

-have Rev. Fred Phelps as party chaplain

-don't have uniforms, but are partial to brown shirts

See how silly that sounds?

I can see the side of not wanting the government to decide were my money goes. I agree, in part. We need to think about the fact that over half of the households in the US, most likely much higher in AL, don't pay federal or state taxes and many still receive a refund come early March or April of each year. In AL, this may take a few more months for the check to be cut. These people drive on the same roads, get the same (opportunity for) education and enjoy many more services provided by the state.

What's wrong w/ having them pay a fraction of their income to help with these services? Why I don't like having to pay more out of my pocket, I do pay state taxes each year and would like those getting refunds after paying zero to be able to contribute a little.

If that is just as small as 4%, so be it.

Ooh, I like this one. I can see, sort of, on both sides of it. I think that repealing a tax is always, pretty much, a good thing. The question is, where will the tax be shifted? I don't think the government will just do away with a tax. There is no benefit for them and we all know if it doesn't benefit them, it won't happen. That 4 percent, that some say is nothing, is money that I worked for and earned to spend in the way I choose. By the same method used earlier to prove that 4 percent is nothing, think about everything that is taxed and see how it adds up to a LOT, more than nothing. No one can really say that 4 percent is not valuable to me, except for me. I spend about $200 everytime I buy groceries. That would put $8 in my pocket, everytime I buy groceries. If I should happen to buy them 3 times per month, that 4 percent savings would pay my internet bill, most of my phone bill, or my water bill, etc. Notice there is an "or" there, not all of them added together. Sure, I am surviving without that 4 percent savings, but it is my money and do you not feel that we are taxed too much? I know other people in other places are taxed more, but does that make it right? That just means that they are getting screwed harder than us. It is your money, not the governments. The whole problem with this, for me, is that it is up to them to decide, not us. I buy a house, taxed forever. I buy land, taxed forever. I buy a car, taxed forever with tags, fuel, and every other expense of a car, every consumable is taxed, everything we do is taxed. Your federal refund can be taxed as income for the state! Really, would it hurt our state if they were to repeal a tax. I think the biggest problem is mis-mangement of money and other problems within the government that creates so much expense in the first place. If they had to get thrifty to survive, I'm sure they could do it, just as we have to. The argument that 4 percent is nothing to us consumers and taxpayers is the same mentality that identity frauds use when they steal your credit card info and charge just a few dollars at a time, hoping you will never notice, and make a pretty good living by doing it to a whole bunch of people.

At the same time, I understand that taxes are important to sustain our way of life and all of the governmental functions. But seriously, if we could easily do without that 4 percent, they probably could too!

Excellant comments from both of you. Why aren't there any comments from the DH regarding the so called "regressive tax on the poor" and the FACT that these families don't pay federal taxes and most receive refunds even if they don't pay a dime to the feds?

I particularly like Mr. Alderman's numbers which really don't pan out to very much per family in the scheme of things. There is no need to end paying grocery taxes in a state where we pay 2-5% less in property taxes than just about any other state. We have to generate revenue or we can't pay for government housing, medicare...the list goes on. So when the DH wants to complain about having the poor pay 4%, maybe inclue a few facts about what they are not paying for also.

Just sayin....

All...

I am always amazed at discussions involving a relatively small tax; it seems more of a political ploy than anything else. Think of it from this perspective.

A 4% tax decrease means that a family saves $4.00 on each $100 they spend; that is nothing! What can you buy for $4.00? Barely a gallon of gasoline! What can you buy with the $1 you save on a $25 grocery bill? Not even a loaf of bread!

At the same time, when you combine the tax revenue from everyone shopping, you have raised a lot of money! Let us suppose that 50,000 families shop in Alabama over the weekend and spend $100 each. By collecting that the $4 in tax from each family, the state has raised $200,000! Quite a lot!

The key, in my humble opinion, is fiscal responsibility. There is no sense in keeping a tax if the money raised is wasted. At the same time, there is no sense in eliminating a tax where there is essentially no effect.

Is my math correct? I am afraid it is not my strong suit...

Sincerely,

Bosley "About to Get My Butt Kicked" Alderman