As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

The Fair Tax - 23% tax rate, 100% retarded

ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
The fair tax - a 23% sales tax on "all" goods - is retarded for the following reasons:

- It's regressive. The rich spend a tiny fraction of their income on goods and services as compared to the poor and middle class. Most of their income goes into savings and investment, because seriously, how much can you really spend on food and clothes and Super Sweet 16 Birthday Parties and small island nations and whatever the fuck else it is that uber-richies buy? Contrast this with the poor, who live paycheck to paycheck and spend 100% of their income on subsistence. You can prebate or rebate folks until the cows come home, but this can only shift the burden up so much. There is no way to place the bulk of a sales tax burden on people who, as a percentage of their income, don't buy all that much. It's like trying to place the bulk of a shoe tax on double amputees. You can either bone the poor, or you can bone the middle class. With some clever finagling, you might even be able to bone the upper-middle class. But the rich will pretty much walk away laughing.

- It's volatile. Consumer spending habits vary wildly based on economic conditions, which means government revenue will vary wildly. This is a Very Bad Thing.

- It forces the government to discourage savings if they want to get their phat lootz. Government policies will likely be implemented to encourage spending and borrowing at the expense of saving. They certainly won't encourage saving, because this hits them in the coffers.

- It'll play holy hell with the economy, and will drive up second-hand sales. Right now, I can buy something new at a store and pay 8% sales tax, or I can buy something slightly used on Craigslist and pay no sales tax. If the sales tax were, instead, 23%, well... fuck the B&M stores. I'll just buy used. Such a sales tax would hurt businesses by discouraging the sales of new goods.

- It has a stupid name. More like RenFaire Tax, m i rite?

- Ignore that last reason.


Discuss.

I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
ElJeffe on
«13

Posts

  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thank you.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah...you're preaching to the choir here, Jeffe.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Hodj wrote: »
    Of course, this still doesn't address the problem.

    The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.

    When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.

    When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.

    This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.

    With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:

    1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
    2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.

    Both of these things directly benefit the poor.

    Then you add on the no more hiding your total income in off shore accounts, instead you pay all your taxes when you buy some frivolous stuff like a nice car that the rich will go through, it's undeniable this is a good call for the poor across the board.

    Blah blah blah. Your still ignoring the simple fact that THE LESS YOU MAKE, THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME YOU SPEND.

    Read that. Read it again. Let it sink the fuck in. If you disagree, go educate yourself on basic (REALLY basic) economics.

    Under a flat-tax system, the more of your income you spend, the more your taxed. Ergo, people who spend more of their income (ie - the poor) have their income taxed the most.

    Unless all the necessities are untaxed. Then the poor are only paying tax on luxery items. And frankly, if you have money to spend on luxery items, then your not that poor and shouldnt be crying that much.

    If I'm low income and really want to buy a house, currently I have to purchase only bare necessities, and hope that the amount of income I have after income tax + necessities is enough.
    Under the new tax system, you can add all the income tax to your savings towards the new house.

    Thus they actually save more money when they are saving, but lose more money when they are not.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah...you're preaching to the choir here, Jeffe.

    At least the pro flat tax people can come in here and we can immolate them here rather then in the primary thread.
    Though I don't think that flat tax quite covers it. Perhaps the "fuck the poor" tax would be more accurate?

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    GOJIRA!GOJIRA! Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah...you're preaching to the choir here, Jeffe.

    Is this choir led by Nick Lachey? That seems potentially disastrous.

    GOJIRA! on
    "We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."
    Sounds vaguely familiar...
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hodj wrote: »
    Secondly, and more importantly, again, the prices on all goods across the board will be lowered, you will only spend what you CHOOSE TO SPEND, the necessities AKA FOOD, GAS, ETC. you get the TAXES back for.

    You will ALWAYS have to buy those products but under the fair tax the poor and middle class are not paying taxes on necessities at. all.

    See this? This is why you are wrong, and considering how thoroughly and achingly wrong it is, why everyone is pissed.

    First, look here. It's an actual look at all the flaws and bullshit in the FairTax proposal.

    When the entire system is predicated on everyone paying "23%" (and the the actual number is north of 30%), there is no way the end price is going to decrease. This hand waving about "hidden tax rates" is the same bullshit that leads people to think supply side/trickle down economics works. It's bullshit, and everyone involved knows it, but it's a useful front for people's actual intentions. It's quite literally and without exaggeration the economic equivalent of saying Intelligent Design is not a religious idea.

    The second problem is this bullshit about "prebates" to take the burden off the poor. How can anyone, possibly, say the current tax system is too complicated and in the same breathe say all we need to do is track everyone's income and projected expenditures on some murkily defined "necessities" and everything will be easy and full of sunshine and rainbows. Besides the fact it's just shifting the burden to the middle class, just imagine trying to systematically maintaining that and tell me how much simpler things will be.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Unless Corporate expenditures are taxed, then you run the risk of having large purchases funneled through employers (with the item or service given to the employee as part of their compensation, in lieu of an ammount of money) and that expenditure would not be taxed at all.

    Evander on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah...you're preaching to the choir here, Jeffe.

    At least the pro flat tax people can come in here and we can immolate them here rather then in the primary thread.
    Though I don't think that flat tax quite covers it. Perhaps the "fuck the poor" tax would be more accurate?

    Yeah. I didn't realize the AmPol thread got infected with stupid.

    And all you need to know about who would benefit from the FairTax is to look at who's supporting it.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Hodj wrote: »
    Of course, this still doesn't address the problem.

    The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.

    When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.

    When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.

    This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.

    With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:

    1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
    2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.

    Both of these things directly benefit the poor.

    Then you add on the no more hiding your total income in off shore accounts, instead you pay all your taxes when you buy some frivolous stuff like a nice car that the rich will go through, it's undeniable this is a good call for the poor across the board.

    Blah blah blah. Your still ignoring the simple fact that THE LESS YOU MAKE, THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME YOU SPEND.

    Read that. Read it again. Let it sink the fuck in. If you disagree, go educate yourself on basic (REALLY basic) economics.

    Under a flat-tax system, the more of your income you spend, the more your taxed. Ergo, people who spend more of their income (ie - the poor) have their income taxed the most.

    Unless all the necessities are untaxed. Then the poor are only paying tax on luxery items. And frankly, if you have money to spend on luxery items, then your not that poor and shouldnt be crying that much.

    If I'm low income and really want to buy a house, currently I have to purchase only bare necessities, and hope that the amount of income I have after income tax + necessities is enough.
    Under the new tax system, you can add all the income tax to your savings towards the new house.

    Thus they actually save more money when they are saving, but lose more money when they are not.

    So, there are "basic goods" that wont be taxed are going to be usable by all, but every other good is going to be taxed to high holy hell to the point that middle class people can't buy it?
    Wow, its almost like we're slicing off half the middle class and forcing them to live like poor people. Unless they bite the bullet, in which case they are the cash cow for our new flat tax.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Hodj wrote: »
    Of course, this still doesn't address the problem.

    The less you make, the more of that money you spend on consumer goods. This means the less you make, the more your income is taxed.

    When you spend 80% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 18.4% income tax.

    When you spend 20% of your income, a 23% sales tax is a 4.6% income tax.

    This trend, combined with the fact that the less you make, the more of your income you do/need to spend, and you've got royal fuckage for the lower classes. All a prebate does is shift that tax burden upward to crush the middle class.

    With all due respect, it really does address the problem in very fundamental ways:

    1. You will get every penny you earn to choose to spend where and when you will, you can't get less taxed than that, especially considering you get your tax money for food back at the beginning of each month whether you are lower income or middle class
    2. The prices on store shelves will drop dramatically in response to the removal of the hidden taxes that lie throughout our society.

    Both of these things directly benefit the poor.

    Then you add on the no more hiding your total income in off shore accounts, instead you pay all your taxes when you buy some frivolous stuff like a nice car that the rich will go through, it's undeniable this is a good call for the poor across the board.

    Blah blah blah. Your still ignoring the simple fact that THE LESS YOU MAKE, THE LARGER THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME YOU SPEND.

    Read that. Read it again. Let it sink the fuck in. If you disagree, go educate yourself on basic (REALLY basic) economics.

    Under a flat-tax system, the more of your income you spend, the more your taxed. Ergo, people who spend more of their income (ie - the poor) have their income taxed the most.

    Unless all the necessities are untaxed. Then the poor are only paying tax on luxery items. And frankly, if you have money to spend on luxery items, then your not that poor and shouldnt be crying that much.

    If I'm low income and really want to buy a house, currently I have to purchase only bare necessities, and hope that the amount of income I have after income tax + necessities is enough.
    Under the new tax system, you can add all the income tax to your savings towards the new house.

    Thus they actually save more money when they are saving, but lose more money when they are not.

    What is the tax rate on their hair shirts?

    moniker on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah...you're preaching to the choir here, Jeffe.

    At least the pro flat tax people can come in here and we can immolate them here rather then in the primary thread.
    Though I don't think that flat tax quite covers it. Perhaps the "fuck the poor" tax would be more accurate?

    Yeah. I didn't realize the AmPol thread got infected with stupid.

    And all you need to know about who would benefit from the FairTax is to look at who's supporting it.

    Actually, I am EXTREMELY confused about why Gravel supports it.

    Although his stance on it focuses primarily on the rebatesand prebates to the poor.

    Evander on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.

    I'm pretty sure that this is going to be enacted as a 23% tax on non essential goods thanks to a bunch of fudged studies by conservative think tanks, we're going to have a million dollar shortfall, and as I said earlier, we'll have to "starve the beast". This means abolishing social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and essentially everything that isn't the military. In short, we turn into Pakistan.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.

    I'm pretty sure that this is going to be enacted as a 23% tax on non essential goods thanks to a bunch of fudged studies by conservative think tanks, we're going to have a trillion dollar shortfall, and as I said earlier, we'll have to "starve the beast". This means abolishing social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and essentially everything that isn't the military. In short, we turn into Pakistan.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    Yeah...you're preaching to the choir here, Jeffe.

    At least the pro flat tax people can come in here and we can immolate them here rather then in the primary thread.
    Though I don't think that flat tax quite covers it. Perhaps the "fuck the poor" tax would be more accurate?

    Yeah. I didn't realize the AmPol thread got infected with stupid.

    And all you need to know about who would benefit from the FairTax is to look at who's supporting it.

    Actually, I am EXTREMELY confused about why Gravel supports it.

    Although his stance on it focuses primarily on the rebatesand prebates to the poor.

    The Negative Income Tax would be a better solution in that respect. Not that it really matters what Gravel supports.

    moniker on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.

    I'm pretty sure that this is going to be enacted as a 23% tax on non essential goods thanks to a bunch of fudged studies by conservative think tanks, we're going to have a trillion dollar shortfall, and as I said earlier, we'll have to "starve the beast". This means abolishing social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and essentially everything that isn't the military. In short, we turn into Pakistan.

    I've always wanted to live in Thunderdome.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Right on , Jeff. Said better and more clearly than I would've.

    Also, I'm predicting that Hodj will not be in here arguing this. Not that he was really arguing it before so much as repeating talking points.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    MarauderMarauder Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    There seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    But hey lets stir some more wealth envy into the pot.....it always pays to hate rich people.

    Marauder on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Look, Picardathon, we get it.

    moniker on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.

    That's why I want to smack the people who say "the richest 1% has over half of all tax liability and that's an outrage!" No it's not, and the reason it's not is because of the fact you left out - they also have about 80% of the total income in the US.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    1. It makes sense when that 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.

    2. Your argument seems to be, "The rich are getting out of paying taxes now. Let's just not make them pay taxes."

    Hachface on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    But hey lets stir some more wealth envy into the pot.....it always pays to hate rich people.

    ...so essentially there are no rich people left in the US, is that what you're telling me?
    ...
    I don't know why, but for some reason I feel as if there's something wrong with your claim.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.

    The "Fair Tax" has always struck me as a stealthy way of "starving the beast", also known as reducing the amount of money the federal government has to spend on social welfare programs and regulatory agencies.

    It seems like outside of Mike Gravel, the "Fair Tax" is only supported by conservatives and libertarian-types.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    But hey lets stir some more wealth envy into the pot.....it always pays to hate rich people.

    But when that 10% has about 95+% of all income in the US - where the fuck should we put that burden?

    Oh, I forgot - you don't let facts stand in the way of a rant.

    By the way, the US still taxes you even if you're an expat. Are they going to give up their US citizenship?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Most rich people eventually realise that unless you are setting up a trust fund, money is made to be spent.

    If the rich people spend 80% of their income on luxury items, and 20% on necisities.
    While poor people spend 20% of thier income on luxury items and 80% on necisities.

    Rich people are taxed 30% on 80% of their income, so 24% of their income goes to taxes.
    Poor people are taxed 30% on 20% of their income, so 6% of their income goes to taxes.

    The rich are paying 4x the rate taxes of the poor. Thats ignoring actual income level which pushes the actual dollar amount paid into the stratosphere compared to the poor.

    All of this unfortunately assumes that the legislature can do this correctly with no loop holes. Which is highly unlikely.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Which is why we are seeing a new kind of white flight to tropical, private islands. Seems like you can't turn on the news anymore without seeing another CEO fly the coop with his golden parachute.
    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    They also have the financial ability to shrug off that financial burden as if it were a bum panhandling them for loose change.

    moniker on
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    But hey lets stir some more wealth envy into the pot.....it always pays to hate rich people.

    It doesn't matter where they move. If they're US citizens, they pay income tax. I can't think of any rich Americans willing to renounce their citizenship just because of taxes. With this "fair tax", they really can take their money elsewhere and we'll see none of it because they'll be spending it where we can't tax it.

    Oh, and placing all that tax burden on the rich makes sense because they own most of the nation's wealth. As has been mentioned before, there's already abundant means for the rich to get out of paying their full share anyway. Why would we make it even easier for them to pay even less?

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I'm pretty sure that this is going to be enacted as a 23% tax on non essential goods thanks to a bunch of fudged studies by conservative think tanks, we're going to have a million dollar shortfall, and as I said earlier, we'll have to "starve the beast". This means abolishing social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and essentially everything that isn't the military. In short, we turn into Pakistan.

    If that happens then the poor get fucked again since they're the ones that depend on social programs.

    Nova_C on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Most rich people eventually realise that unless you are setting up a trust fund, money is made to be spent.

    If the rich people spend 80% of their income on luxury items, and 20% on necisities.
    While poor people spend 20% of thier income on luxury items and 80% on necisities.

    Rich people are taxed 30% on 80% of their income, so 24% of their income goes to taxes.
    Poor people are taxed 30% on 20% of their income, so 6% of their income goes to taxes.

    The rich are paying 4x the taxes of the poor.

    All of this unfortunately assumes that the legislature can do this correctly with no loop holes. Which is highly unlikely.

    ...what?! Consumption declines as you get more wealthy while investments increase. Well, if we're talking percentage of income, that is. Bentleys cost about as much as most starter homes, afterall.

    Are you suggesting we put a sales tax on stocks and bonds under this fair tax?

    moniker on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    But hey lets stir some more wealth envy into the pot.....it always pays to hate rich people.

    But when that 10% has about 95+% of all income in the US - where the fuck should we put that burden?

    Oh, I forgot - you don't let facts stand in the way of a rant.

    By the way, the US still taxes you even if you're an expat. Are they going to give up their US citizenship?

    You don't understand Angel. Not only are those facts, which are biased towards the left, but you don't have 10 think tanks filled with people who are paid six figures to sit on their ass and come up with really creative lies to support you. You're not going to get to him this way.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    Unless Corporate expenditures are taxed, then you run the risk of having large purchases funneled through employers (with the item or service given to the employee as part of their compensation, in lieu of an ammount of money) and that expenditure would not be taxed at all.

    I hate quoting myself, but I'd really like to see a response to this.

    Evander on
  • Options
    xraydogxraydog Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.

    xraydog on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Most rich people eventually realise that unless you are setting up a trust fund, money is made to be spent.

    Ummm... source?

    Evander on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Most rich people eventually realise that unless you are setting up a trust fund, money is made to be spent.

    If the rich people spend 80% of their income on luxury items, and 20% on necisities.
    While poor people spend 20% of thier income on luxury items and 80% on necisities.

    Rich people are taxed 30% on 80% of their income, so 24% of their income goes to taxes.
    Poor people are taxed 30% on 20% of their income, so 6% of their income goes to taxes.

    The rich are paying 4x the rate taxes of the poor. Thats ignoring actual income level which pushes the actual dollar amount paid into the stratosphere compared to the poor.

    All of this unfortunately assumes that the legislature can do this correctly with no loop holes. Which is highly unlikely.

    You forgot one more figure.
    The rich person has made ten million dollars, choosing to spend 1 million of it. Therefore, 24% of 1% of their income is taxed, or .24%.
    The poor person has to spend all of the ten thousand dollars they made, so 6% of their total income is taxed.
    6% to .24%. I'd rather be the rich person in that case.
    TLDR: Poor people spend more of their income compared to rich people, dummy!

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    xraydog wrote: »
    So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.

    A progressive income tax, and yes it is.

    moniker on
  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    xraydog wrote: »
    So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.

    Yes. A progressive, graduated income tax.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Unless Corporate expenditures are taxed, then you run the risk of having large purchases funneled through employers (with the item or service given to the employee as part of their compensation, in lieu of an ammount of money) and that expenditure would not be taxed at all.

    I hate quoting myself, but I'd really like to see a response to this.

    The official response to a point that can't be refuted: ignore it.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    MarauderMarauder Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hachface wrote: »
    Marauder wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Now, if the super-rich--the ones with the money--are only seeing about 3% of their total worth taxed, and the poor are all prebated into paying few to no taxes, how the hell is that going to generate enough revenue to keep the federal government solvent? There's a reason you should have a greater tax burden on the rich: that's where the money is, and they can afford it.


    Yeah. And they can totally NOT afford to tell you to go fuck youself and move to the Caymans. Not at all.

    Their seems to be some fallacy with placing 90% of your tax burden on 10% of your population, especially when that 10% also has the financial ability to pick up and move the fuck out.

    1. It makes sense when that 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.

    2. Your argument seems to be, "The rich are getting out of paying taxes now. Let's just not make them pay taxes."

    No, merely to point out you're treating them like a limitless commodity.....when they are actually humans, and will do what humans do best : whatevers best for them.

    Not being rich, why the fuck would I stand up for them? Because I know where my job comes from, and it isn't because of charity or goodwill towards men. Sharing the burden equally via how much you consume sounds a lot more fair than "lol he has phat lootz, lets steal it from him!!". Cause thats basically what you said up above.

    Marauder on
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    xraydog wrote: »
    So, what would it be called to tax people proportional to their wealth? Is that what we have now? I'm woefully ignorant on these things.

    A progressive income tax, and yes it is.

    It is? I thought income was separate from wealth. As in, you can be wealthy and have no income, and as such, have no income tax.

    Nova_C on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Unless Corporate expenditures are taxed, then you run the risk of having large purchases funneled through employers (with the item or service given to the employee as part of their compensation, in lieu of an ammount of money) and that expenditure would not be taxed at all.

    I hate quoting myself, but I'd really like to see a response to this.

    The official response to a point that can't be refuted: ignore it.

    I am confused. (I'm sick, and my brain wiring isa bit fried because of it.)

    You are either saying that I have a solid point that can't be argued against, or that my point is 100% wrong, I think.

    Which is it?

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.