User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 6:26:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can’t save money when your taxes are raised by 15k a year. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you spend all of your available income, you won't be able to raise capital to begin with because you won't even be able to borrow money to do so. That's the point. Savings and investment are *SUPPOSED* to be tied together, not separated. You can’t save money when your taxes are raised by 15k a year. Taxes would be reduced which would enable the individual to begin to save, acquire wealth and capital, and ultimately climb the ladder of success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 6:32:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What percentage of farmers own the land they work? What percentage of those have a mortgage? Those taxes are a rounding error in the total budget, all non-income, non-payroll taxes together are 8% of federal revenue. As shown above, someone with a wife and four kids making $50k is getting $7k back, not paying thousands in sales taxes as under your scheme. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-6-20pbu1.png So the $100,000 sales tax on a new house will make up for the fact that the drywall guys got paid in cash? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Laughs in farmer. What percentage of farmers own the land they work? What percentage of those have a mortgage? Quoted: People making $50k a year *DO* pay income taxes. My son makes less than that and he absolutely pays income tax. Further he (and everybody else) also pay a variety of other Federal taxes. Buy a gun recently? Excise tax. Book an airline flight? Federal taxes. And on and on and on. Those taxes are a rounding error in the total budget, all non-income, non-payroll taxes together are 8% of federal revenue. As shown above, someone with a wife and four kids making $50k is getting $7k back, not paying thousands in sales taxes as under your scheme. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-6-20pbu1.png Quoted: No, they don't. They spend more money than they have *PLUS* what we give to them. Further, every "poor" person I've ever met does something to make cash under the table. "Poor" means income not from a traditional source. I'm trying to force them to pay their share of the same burden as the rest of us do. Amazing how much less you piss away when you have to earn what you have. So the $100,000 sales tax on a new house will make up for the fact that the drywall guys got paid in cash? Most farmers own the land they work. Some have a mortgage and some do not. Not really relevant. You made the claim that land ownership produces nothing and I presented one example where that assertion is flat wrong. Oh, now you're acknowledging that there are Federal taxes besides the income tax now. (And 8% of trillions of dollars is far from a "rounding error".) Well, at least that's a start. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 6:50:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most farmers own the land they work. Some have a mortgage and some do not. Not really relevant. You made the claim that land ownership produces nothing and I presented one example where that assertion is flat wrong. Oh, now you're acknowledging that there are Federal taxes besides the income tax now. (And 8% of trillions of dollars is far from a "rounding error".) Well, at least that's a start. 60% of US farmers own all or some of the land they farm, meaning 40% own none of it and some portion own only some of it. There's $300B in mortgages on farmland, which is about 10% of total land value. Are you arguing that farmers that own their own land are productive but tenant farmers are not? 8% of federal revenue is $325B, which is just under $1,000 for every person in the country. But you aren't proposing to eliminate most of that with your 17% tax (or is it 30%?) because that only covers income and estate taxes, not excise taxes. ETA: This might help you understand who pays taxes: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 9:05:26 PM EDT
[#4]
So for 80% of Americans he has proposed a tax increase.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 9:42:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 60% of US farmers own all or some of the land they farm, meaning 40% own none of it and some portion own only some of it. There's $300B in mortgages on farmland, which is about 10% of total land value. Are you arguing that farmers that own their own land are productive but tenant farmers are not? 8% of federal revenue is $325B, which is just under $1,000 for every person in the country. But you aren't proposing to eliminate most of that with your 17% tax (or is it 30%?) because that only covers income and estate taxes, not excise taxes. ETA: This might help you understand who pays taxes: https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Understanding-the-budget-revenue-chart-2.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Most farmers own the land they work. Some have a mortgage and some do not. Not really relevant. You made the claim that land ownership produces nothing and I presented one example where that assertion is flat wrong. Oh, now you're acknowledging that there are Federal taxes besides the income tax now. (And 8% of trillions of dollars is far from a "rounding error".) Well, at least that's a start. 60% of US farmers own all or some of the land they farm, meaning 40% own none of it and some portion own only some of it. There's $300B in mortgages on farmland, which is about 10% of total land value. Are you arguing that farmers that own their own land are productive but tenant farmers are not? 8% of federal revenue is $325B, which is just under $1,000 for every person in the country. But you aren't proposing to eliminate most of that with your 17% tax (or is it 30%?) because that only covers income and estate taxes, not excise taxes. ETA: This might help you understand who pays taxes: https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Understanding-the-budget-revenue-chart-2.jpg No, you were arguing that land ownership produces nothing and I proved you wrong. There are other examples of same if you're interested. Also, using your own pie chart, that 8% isn't a rounding error. Further, if the only source of revenue for the Feral Government is a national sales tax, then all 3 categories collapse into one. So, yes, that will reduce most people's taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 9:43:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So for 80% of Americans he has proposed a tax increase. No, quite the opposite. By collapsing all types of .gov revenue into one source, the sales tax, then that will *reduce* the tax burden on most Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 11:58:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, quite the opposite. By collapsing all types of .gov revenue into one source, the sales tax, then that will *reduce* the tax burden on most Americans. Show your math. The 17% figure you keep quoting is just the income and estate taxes, so only around 60% of taxes, you'd need more like 29% (rough guess) to get enough money. How is someone that pays roughly zero now going to be better off paying a 29% income tax? Be specific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 12:24:54 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show your math. The 17% figure you keep quoting is just the income and estate taxes, so only around 60% of taxes, you'd need more like 29% (rough guess) to get enough money. How is someone that pays roughly zero now going to be better off paying a 29% income tax? Be specific. Raising hand...let me answer. EITC for sales tax. The chart above (Post #3) shows negative federal income tax for the two lowest quintile groups. What does that mean? I thought that the EITC "refunded" payroll (Social Security and Medicare) taxes. Correct or not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 12:31:45 AM EDT
[#9]
We're not here to social "engineer."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 12:32:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Raising hand...let me answer. EITC for sales tax. The chart above (Post #3) shows negative federal income tax for the two lowest quintile groups. What does that mean? I thought that the EITC "refunded" payroll (Social Security and Medicare) taxes. Correct or not? The EITC is a refund for income taxes for poor people that work. It has nothing to do with payroll taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 12:34:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Flat tax will not happen. When politicians need money they can sit on the tax committees and get campaign contributions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 1:14:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Revenue neutral
Everyone shops so everyone pays. You are taxed on what you use, not what you earn, which is the way it should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 1:21:17 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Revenue neutral Everyone shops so everyone pays. You are taxed on what you use, not what you earn, which is the way it should be. This was always a great plan. Sadly why it won’t be implemented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 1:31:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This was always a great plan. Sadly why it won’t be implemented. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Revenue neutral Everyone shops so everyone pays. You are taxed on what you use, not what you earn, which is the way it should be. This was always a great plan. Sadly why it won’t be implemented. I’m for any reasonable plan that is revenue neutral, taxes everyone equally (based on use) and eliminates the revenue man. The fairtax seems to be that plan, but I’m open to other ideas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 1:45:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m for any reasonable plan that is revenue neutral, taxes everyone equally (based on use) and eliminates the revenue man. The fairtax seems to be that plan, but I’m open to other ideas. You didn’t seem like the sort to suggest giving people government checks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 1:47:51 AM EDT
[#16]
I can make this even easier.
Abolish taxes period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:03:40 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me sum up the opinion of a lot of people here: If people would just stop being poor this wouldn’t be a problem. If they continue to be poor we can just incarcerate them when they cant pay their “fair share” of taxes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ironic that this thread has devolved into a bunch of middle and upper class types arguing about the best way to make the poor pay their fair share. Would we charge this sales tax on rent? On loans? On insurance products? Let me sum up the opinion of a lot of people here: If people would just stop being poor this wouldn’t be a problem. If they continue to be poor we can just incarcerate them when they cant pay their “fair share” of taxes. I don’t think that is quite it. More accurately, it would be- Some people in this thread feel that other should be obligated to fund them. Involuntarily. To the point armed people will come take them away at gunpoint and put them in jail if they don’t. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:24:05 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not at all. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that rich people don't spend money. That is incorrect. What they do is (typically) to spend money *wisely* to further their own generation of wealth. Less rich people do the same (like buying stocks and bonds via their payroll deduction). By taxing the spending side at the same percentage, you are not only encouraging savings (and investment for that matter) for the less fortunate but for the very fortunate as well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, percentage is the most accurate since a sales tax is a percentage of the sale price. If that percentage is the same for everybody who spends, it it equitable. Encouraging savings is great. But politicians are never going to vote to massively increase the tax rates for the bottom 50% of taxpayers while lowering taxes for the wealthy. It's political suicide, and it's what you're proposing. Not at all. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that rich people don't spend money. That is incorrect. What they do is (typically) to spend money *wisely* to further their own generation of wealth. Less rich people do the same (like buying stocks and bonds via their payroll deduction). By taxing the spending side at the same percentage, you are not only encouraging savings (and investment for that matter) for the less fortunate but for the very fortunate as well. People don’t like trickle down economics for a couple of reasons. One is the mega wealthy still dodge any significant impact. Two is because it does not benefit non productive people that don’t work. Where it really pays off is with the affluent. Say someone pays 150K a year in federal income tax. If some tax relief bill comes along, And 100 people that pay 150K a year get their taxes cut in half, That’s 100 people putting 75K, 7.5M straight into people that install pools, do bodywork/paint or rebuild engines for vintage collector cars, put up a run in shelter, put an American made lift in their garage, buy a Wrangler 392, do fancy landscaping, support high Engle local business bicycle shops, etc. It gets dumped into legit wealth generation and supports productive people. When they decide to give 1000 bucks each in “tax credit” - literal wealth redistribution- and they give it 7.5K people - That dumps noting into wealth generation. That means 7500 people buy a cheap made in China big screen and a cheap made in China bicycle at Walmart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:32:58 AM EDT
[#19]
People keep saying flat tax and just assume income tax somehow stays in the equation.
You're making things too complicated. Eliminate ALL income tax. You take home everything you make. The only tax is a nation wide sales tax Fed and state. Every one who purchases something pays the tax at checkout. So the honest and the criminals who pay no income tax now, due to income from illegal means, still pay when they buy goods or services. This takes power out of the politicians hands. They would need to encourage people to spend their hard earned money to collect tax revenue. Income taxation is theft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:34:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People keep saying flat tax and just assume income tax somehow stays in the equation. You're making things too complicated. Eliminate ALL income tax. You take home everything you make. The only tax is a nation wide sales tax Fed and state. Every one who purchases something pays the tax at checkout. So the honest and the criminals who pay no income tax now, due to income from illegal means, still pay when they buy goods or services. This takes power out of the politicians hands. They would need to encourage people to spend their hard earned money to collect tax revenue. Income taxation is theft. We just had a 12 page discussion about how that’s a massive tax increase for most people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:37:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I should have said 5x as a share of income. Plane maker wants 23% of everything, including food, medicine, stock transactions, etc. at that rate you’d need to have few if any exemptions. So someone making 50k will spend it all and pay 23% of his income on taxes, that’s $11,500. My pops on the other hand, let’s say he makes $6m, which is a good year for him. He spends $300k on personal mortgages, his truck, food, ammo to shoot raccoons and doodads for his home tinkering hobby since he’s semi retired. He pays 23% of 300k, or 69,000. So he pays 6 times what the other guy pays, but has 120 times the income. And next year when he’s moved his money into foreign rentals instead of US rentals that 5.7k he invested will pay him $570,000 more than he made this year. A sales tax is like steroids for the rich. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can you walk me through that? In the country of Scottistan in the state of planemaker there is a 5% federal sales tax and a 5% state sales tax. It has some progressive features built in. There is zero tax on groceries, electric bill, housing, children’s sized clothing. Let’s say we have a guy busting ass 40 hours a week for his wife and four kids making 50K a year. Another guy is working 80 hours a week and making 500K a year. After rent, utilities, clothes, and groceries, the first guy has 10K leftover. If he spends every penny on taxable items, that’s 1K. Hell, if every dime he made was spent on taxable stuff that is 5K. The second guy spent 50K on a Wrangler for his oldest daughter. That’s 5K right there. Let alone the 100K he spent on an SRT 392 Wrangler, winch, etc. for himself. There is another 10K. I don’t see by what possible mechanism a 10% sales tax results in the poors paying 5x as much to the state as the affluent. For the social, political, and financial 0.1% and up types, sure, maybe those Jeeps actually belong to a business, foundation, non profit, etc. And we’re exempt from sales tax. I should have said 5x as a share of income. Plane maker wants 23% of everything, including food, medicine, stock transactions, etc. at that rate you’d need to have few if any exemptions. So someone making 50k will spend it all and pay 23% of his income on taxes, that’s $11,500. My pops on the other hand, let’s say he makes $6m, which is a good year for him. He spends $300k on personal mortgages, his truck, food, ammo to shoot raccoons and doodads for his home tinkering hobby since he’s semi retired. He pays 23% of 300k, or 69,000. So he pays 6 times what the other guy pays, but has 120 times the income. And next year when he’s moved his money into foreign rentals instead of US rentals that 5.7k he invested will pay him $570,000 more than he made this year. A sales tax is like steroids for the rich. Thank you, got it. I’m not really interested in percent share of income. And I find saying someone paid “6 times as much!” When they paid 11.5K instead of 69K misleading. The reality is Pops paid 6 times as much. It’s like saying some 6’11” guy that averaged 69 points per game in the NBA didn’t score his fair share because he was taller than the 6’1” point guard that averages 11.5 points per game. If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:42:05 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The articles of confederation had the states funding the confederation. They were unreliable, there was no coercive power, and they quibbled about money. The constitution was written to give the government direct power over citizens because of that. Everyone knows this. Pay attention. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Who’s piss bucket you carrying here. Your angle and agenda are questionable, at best... Your utter lack of understanding of the big picture which is the Constitution is laughable By your convoluted logic in attempt to convince folks that taxing the People was original intent is derp ”The failing of the Articles of Confederation was the inability to tax the public. That’s why the Constitution was written originally” You should go ahead and explain as to why taxing the People’s income had been held unconstitutional from the time of the drafting of the Constitution, up until the fukin Communists began embedding themselves in the American gov in the early 1900s The Constitution is based on restricting the federal Govs ability to directly reach and rule the People It was designed to have the federal gov ONLY deal with the States. Created as such to avoid the almighty overlord syndrome that the framers has been dealing with via the oppressive Act(s) of the king of England forced upon the People of the Colonies The articles of confederation had the states funding the confederation. They were unreliable, there was no coercive power, and they quibbled about money. The constitution was written to give the government direct power over citizens because of that. Everyone knows this. Pay attention.   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:46:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @ramairthree To the extent that wealth disparity is the product of superior ability, effort and luck related to risks taken, I have no objection to it. I’d like to earn my own wealth also. To the extent that it’s gained by getting the government to tax the working class to pay the rich for things while the rich pay less of their income (percent) I am not ok with it. Government intervention to make the rich richer is improper. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wealth disparity in the Us is exacerbated by piss poor government policy and some other shady stuff. Eliminating that will NOT wash our wealth disparity. Quality density info involving cognitive ability, will, desire, effort, resilience, work ethics, shitty lifestyle choices, and poor decision making skills will ensure further wealth disparity ensues unchecked. @ramairthree To the extent that wealth disparity is the product of superior ability, effort and luck related to risks taken, I have no objection to it. I’d like to earn my own wealth also. To the extent that it’s gained by getting the government to tax the working class to pay the rich for things while the rich pay less of their income (percent) I am not ok with it. Government intervention to make the rich richer is improper. Yeah, understood. To be clear please understand I do not view the financial, political, and social elite as being on the same map. They are simply not playing the same game. I’m getting at the the people crushing it, busting ass, and earning a few hundred K to a couple a million a year- Who eat the bulk of the 50% or so of income tax revenue. Not the guys who cut a deal with the politicians to make a law requiring electronic cloud based state insurance and drivers databases who also let the politicians invest in the system, and get shifted taxpayer dollars to buy their systems, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:50:15 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:51:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you, got it. I’m not really interested in percent share of income. And I find saying someone paid “6 times as much!” When they paid 11.5K instead of 69K misleading. The reality is Pops paid 6 times as much. It’s like saying some 6’11” guy that averaged 69 points per game in the NBA didn’t score his fair share because he was taller than the 6’1” point guard that averages 11.5 points per game. If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. If you use just a sales tax, in short order the family that was scraping by will still be scraping by and he will be worth hundreds of millions And then that poor family will come for him with pitchforks and kill him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:53:27 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 2:58:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 60% of US farmers own all or some of the land they farm, meaning 40% own none of it and some portion own only some of it. There's $300B in mortgages on farmland, which is about 10% of total land value. Are you arguing that farmers that own their own land are productive but tenant farmers are not? 8% of federal revenue is $325B, which is just under $1,000 for every person in the country. But you aren't proposing to eliminate most of that with your 17% tax (or is it 30%?) because that only covers income and estate taxes, not excise taxes. ETA: This might help you understand who pays taxes: https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Understanding-the-budget-revenue-chart-2.jpg This chart is different than what I have seen. I mean, it’s the same up to the top 1%, But I am used to seeing a significant decrease in the blue portion at 0.1%, let alone 0.01% |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:00:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, understood. To be clear please understand I do not view the financial, political, and social elite as being on the same map. They are simply not playing the same game. I’m getting at the the people crushing it, busting ass, and earning a few hundred K to a couple a million a year- Who eat the bulk of the 50% or so of income tax revenue. Not the guys who cut a deal with the politicians to make a law requiring electronic cloud based state insurance and drivers databases who also let the politicians invest in the system, and get shifted taxpayer dollars to buy their systems, etc. Why would we shift the tax burden off them an onto poor people? Are you trying to prove a point? Or send a message? Because raising revenue obviously isn't the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:01:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This chart is different than what I have seen. I mean, it’s the same up to the top 1%, But I am used to seeing a significant decrease in the blue portion at 0.1%, let alone 0.01% I noticed that as well, not sure about why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:04:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you use just a sales tax, in short order the family that was scraping by will still be scraping by and he will be worth hundreds of millions And then that poor family will come for him with pitchforks and kill him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thank you, got it. I’m not really interested in percent share of income. And I find saying someone paid “6 times as much!” When they paid 11.5K instead of 69K misleading. The reality is Pops paid 6 times as much. It’s like saying some 6’11” guy that averaged 69 points per game in the NBA didn’t score his fair share because he was taller than the 6’1” point guard that averages 11.5 points per game. If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. If you use just a sales tax, in short order the family that was scraping by will still be scraping by and he will be worth hundreds of millions And then that poor family will come for him with pitchforks and kill him. I’m not arguing for a particular type of tax. I’m saying the same thing as your last sentence. People think others should be obligated to support them to the point they will, or want the government to, come and make them support them under threat of death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:06:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m not arguing for a particular type of tax. I’m saying the same thing as your last sentence. People think others should be obligated to support them to the point they will, or want the government to, come and make them support them under threat of death. The NPV of the average workers SS benefits is $300,000. It is their most valuable asset. Telling someone that you are going to take it away is not going to go well. If people want to slash away at government benefits, then you need to come up with a plan to replace them with something else. Plenty of countries that have figured it out over the years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:11:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would we shift the tax burden off them an onto poor people? Are you trying to prove a point? Or send a message? Because raising revenue obviously isn't the point. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, understood. To be clear please understand I do not view the financial, political, and social elite as being on the same map. They are simply not playing the same game. I’m getting at the the people crushing it, busting ass, and earning a few hundred K to a couple a million a year- Who eat the bulk of the 50% or so of income tax revenue. Not the guys who cut a deal with the politicians to make a law requiring electronic cloud based state insurance and drivers databases who also let the politicians invest in the system, and get shifted taxpayer dollars to buy their systems, etc. Why would we shift the tax burden off them an onto poor people? Are you trying to prove a point? Or send a message? Because raising revenue obviously isn't the point. The social, political, and financial elite make out like bandits. They skim off the top of the 24.9% or so most productive citizens below them, and use the rest to pay the bottom 50% least productive citizens or so for their vote. While the other 25 percent in the middle are just along for the ride. And that top 25% or so under them are getting squeezed harder by the very top, and the bottom 50% are demanding even more pay and benefits for their vote. When we already spend twice what we collect in income tax revenue. Why do we demand the top 24.9 ish fund the bottom 50% for the benefit of the top o.1%? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:20:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do we demand the top 24.9 ish fund the bottom 50% for the benefit of the top o.1%? This is how I arrived at the land tax. Most of the value of land is held by the wealthy, either as their home sites or for their businesses. A lot in Compton might run $400,000. That same lot in West Hollywood might run $4,000,000. They both house a single family. Same with businesses. A guy with a one acre farm making $48,000 a year for artisanal lettuce is different than a guy selling an acre to an office developer for a high rise... The only downside is that you can only raise up to about $3T with a tax on land. The upside is that all those contractors, physicians, etc would come out ahead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:42:52 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We just had a 12 page discussion about how that’s a massive tax increase for most people. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: People keep saying flat tax and just assume income tax somehow stays in the equation. You're making things too complicated. Eliminate ALL income tax. You take home everything you make. The only tax is a nation wide sales tax Fed and state. Every one who purchases something pays the tax at checkout. So the honest and the criminals who pay no income tax now, due to income from illegal means, still pay when they buy goods or services. This takes power out of the politicians hands. They would need to encourage people to spend their hard earned money to collect tax revenue. Income taxation is theft. We just had a 12 page discussion about how that’s a massive tax increase for most people. If you pay no taxes and suddenly have to pay, yeah that’s a massive tax increase. A huge portion of the U.S. population pay no taxes, because they receive handouts from the government which are taxes taken from the productive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 3:50:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Vastly reduce useless government programs and employees. Reduce representative pay by 50%. Death penalty for taking a bribe or kickback. No one will starve. The amount of money the government wastes is insane. Truth. We quibble over a few percentage points and tens of thousands of dollars while the .gov is literally pissing away millions by the minute. We shouldn't be arguing over the best way the .gov rapes us in taxes, we need to start starving the .gov of their "revenue" and force MASSIVE reforms in spending and entitlements. ROCK6 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 6:34:07 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the government spends way beyond its income is proof that tax is not needed at all. Income taxes at this point serve entirely as a means of moving money from the productive to the unproductive. Abolish all income taxes. Close, it's a social engineering tool. Which is a very valuable tool to those in power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 7:01:15 AM EDT
[#37]
Consumption tax. And the size, scope, and cost of the govt needs to be cut to a fraction of its current size.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 7:23:59 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you buy more things or fewer things with a 23% sales tax? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: National sales tax. Stop taxing productivity. If your major goal is having a smaller economy that’s a good one. No, not really. Would you buy more things or fewer things with a 23% sales tax? 23% total tax is way less than what I pay in total taxes now.....so, yes....more things |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 8:05:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 23% total tax is way less than what I pay in total taxes now.....so, yes....more things Not everyone makes over $150k and pays those kind of taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 8:21:47 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not everyone makes over $150k and pays those kind of taxes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 23% total tax is way less than what I pay in total taxes now.....so, yes....more things Not everyone makes over $150k and pays those kind of taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:12:41 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People don’t like trickle down economics for a couple of reasons. One is the mega wealthy still dodge any significant impact. Two is because it does not benefit non productive people that don’t work. Where it really pays off is with the affluent. Say someone pays 150K a year in federal income tax. If some tax relief bill comes along, And 100 people that pay 150K a year get their taxes cut in half, That’s 100 people putting 75K, 7.5M straight into people that install pools, do bodywork/paint or rebuild engines for vintage collector cars, put up a run in shelter, put an American made lift in their garage, buy a Wrangler 392, do fancy landscaping, support high Engle local business bicycle shops, etc. It gets dumped into legit wealth generation and supports productive people. When they decide to give 1000 bucks each in “tax credit” - literal wealth redistribution- and they give it 7.5K people - That dumps noting into wealth generation. That means 7500 people buy a cheap made in China big screen and a cheap made in China bicycle at Walmart. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, percentage is the most accurate since a sales tax is a percentage of the sale price. If that percentage is the same for everybody who spends, it it equitable. Encouraging savings is great. But politicians are never going to vote to massively increase the tax rates for the bottom 50% of taxpayers while lowering taxes for the wealthy. It's political suicide, and it's what you're proposing. Not at all. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that rich people don't spend money. That is incorrect. What they do is (typically) to spend money *wisely* to further their own generation of wealth. Less rich people do the same (like buying stocks and bonds via their payroll deduction). By taxing the spending side at the same percentage, you are not only encouraging savings (and investment for that matter) for the less fortunate but for the very fortunate as well. People don’t like trickle down economics for a couple of reasons. One is the mega wealthy still dodge any significant impact. Two is because it does not benefit non productive people that don’t work. Where it really pays off is with the affluent. Say someone pays 150K a year in federal income tax. If some tax relief bill comes along, And 100 people that pay 150K a year get their taxes cut in half, That’s 100 people putting 75K, 7.5M straight into people that install pools, do bodywork/paint or rebuild engines for vintage collector cars, put up a run in shelter, put an American made lift in their garage, buy a Wrangler 392, do fancy landscaping, support high Engle local business bicycle shops, etc. It gets dumped into legit wealth generation and supports productive people. When they decide to give 1000 bucks each in “tax credit” - literal wealth redistribution- and they give it 7.5K people - That dumps noting into wealth generation. That means 7500 people buy a cheap made in China big screen and a cheap made in China bicycle at Walmart. It occurs to me that our Byzantine maze of tax code is one which has been created by the "highest bidder" in terms of tax breaks for esoteric things that only the wealthy can take advantage of. Such selling of legislation feeds a corrupt empire in DC where the high-paid lobbyists try to get their pet tax break included in the next bill. Without eliminating the ability of Congress to "sell" tax breaks to the highest contributors to their campaigns, it will only continue to fester and the country will be the worse off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:16:21 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:18:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The NPV of the average workers SS benefits is $300,000. It is their most valuable asset. Telling someone that you are going to take it away is not going to go well. If people want to slash away at government benefits, then you need to come up with a plan to replace them with something else. Plenty of countries that have figured it out over the years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’m not arguing for a particular type of tax. I’m saying the same thing as your last sentence. People think others should be obligated to support them to the point they will, or want the government to, come and make them support them under threat of death. The NPV of the average workers SS benefits is $300,000. It is their most valuable asset. Telling someone that you are going to take it away is not going to go well. If people want to slash away at government benefits, then you need to come up with a plan to replace them with something else. Plenty of countries that have figured it out over the years. Plenty of countries have an 80%+ tax rate, too. What we need to do is eliminate socialism in all its forms and allow actual charitable organizations to do what they were formed to do without interference from the .gov. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:20:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Consumption tax. And the size, scope, and cost of the govt needs to be cut to a fraction of its current size. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:25:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:31:59 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. Some of you guys can be stuck on “proportionately” all you want. If it cost me $1000 dollars to feed 100 people, and they each get a same sized slice- They have each consumed 10 bucks worth. No matter how you word it and claim what is fair- They ate 10 bucks worth. If you want 9 guys to each pay 50 bucks, and 10 guys to each pay 20 bucks, and 10 guys to pay 10 bucks, and 10 guys to pay 5 bucks, and 50 guys to eat for free- Plus bring in another 10 guys to eat for free, plus let 10 more sneak in to eat for free, And 1 guy kept 300 bucks for himself… |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:38:00 AM EDT
[#47]
I just recall when I was overseas. My tax forms in many countries was literally a double sided A4 sheet of paper. My US tax returns were over 120 pages, and I needed a PhD to decipher. That is horribly inefficient, stupid, and a reflection of our out of control bureaucracy. Flat sales tax is the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 10:59:19 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really don't get how you reconcile those two sentences. The only way it makes sense if if you believe lower income people have the same or lower consumption percentages as compared to high net worth people, as in they save more of their money. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. Eliminating the disparity between tax advantages of what the wealthy and what the working class can take advantage of eliminates the .gov picking winners and losers. Further, by taxing consumption, those who spend more pay more. You need to stop considering income altogether as a measure of what should be an equitable share of the tax burden. That has no bearing on "fairness". It's a classist/socialist mindset that we need to eliminate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 11:04:05 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some of you guys can be stuck on “proportionately” all you want. If it cost me $1000 dollars to feed 100 people, and they each get a same sized slice- They have each consumed 10 bucks worth. No matter how you word it and claim what is fair- They ate 10 bucks worth. If you want 9 guys to each pay 50 bucks, and 10 guys to each pay 20 bucks, and 10 guys to pay 10 bucks, and 10 guys to pay 5 bucks, and 50 guys to eat for free- Plus bring in another 10 guys to eat for free, plus let 10 more sneak in to eat for free, And 1 guy kept 300 bucks for himself… Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the cost of running our state and federal governments is 30K per citizen. The guy making 50K and paying 11.5K is a net loss. Your pops is paying 69K. He is chipping in more than double his share. That's an argument for a head tax, not a sales tax. No, a fixed head tax disproportionally impacts lower earning people. By using a flat tax on consumption, each person pays the same percentage of their consumption and thus contributes equally to the support of what little .gov there should be. Some of you guys can be stuck on “proportionately” all you want. If it cost me $1000 dollars to feed 100 people, and they each get a same sized slice- They have each consumed 10 bucks worth. No matter how you word it and claim what is fair- They ate 10 bucks worth. If you want 9 guys to each pay 50 bucks, and 10 guys to each pay 20 bucks, and 10 guys to pay 10 bucks, and 10 guys to pay 5 bucks, and 50 guys to eat for free- Plus bring in another 10 guys to eat for free, plus let 10 more sneak in to eat for free, And 1 guy kept 300 bucks for himself… Some folks seem to be stuck on the "soak the rich" mindset that permeates the public mindset. Just as we don't scale our civil liberties with income, neither should we scale our proportional contribution to the (far too large) tax burden of the .gov. By targeting something that is a public benefit (increasing savings and investment) by taxing consumption, we both improve economic productivity and engage everyone in the funding of the .gov that provides the functions we all take advantage of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2022 1:18:06 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Eliminating the disparity between tax advantages of what the wealthy and what the working class can take advantage of eliminates the .gov picking winners and losers. Further, by taxing consumption, those who spend more pay more. You need to stop considering income altogether as a measure of what should be an equitable share of the tax burden. That has no bearing on "fairness". It's a classist/socialist mindset that we need to eliminate. Again, you are arguing for a head tax. Not a sales tax. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
